Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by Murgatroid


Those are not facts.

1) Everything is backwards.

Mr. Elnner is wrong. I'm sure everyone here has heard the term "money makes the world go round".

That is a fact and everything that is listed as backwards, besides being hyperbole, is just falling in line with the greater truth that money makes the world go round.

2) Science has become a Religion.

First off, if you believe that the Illuminati are in control then that would include the old religions as well as anything you are trying to place that label on in this day and age.

Second, science, like every other field, is not immune to the negative effects of money.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

How can we know, or prove, what that objective reality really is, let alone declare the uniformity of it, or lack there of, across all of the cosmos- a place that we haven't come close to observing/understanding in its totality? (funny I called it a place, but that's just my subjective notion of it. Objectively, the universe could be a completely different concept, like a dimension, beyond our capabilities of describing it.) We can't even come to an agreement on what reality is.

The scientific method is the best way we have of determining what is true, and (though this is not my area of study) generally speaking we expect the standard model of particle physics to be true throughout the cosmos for the universe to make any sort of sense to us.

Are there gaps in our knowledge? Yep. Could there be all sorts of unexpected phenomena and surprises out there which throw physics on it's head? Absolutely.

But this goes back to the argument from ignorance fallacy - just because there is a gap in our knowledge it does not mean that any crazy idea should be accepted as anything more than a crazy idea.

Until we have reason to believe something is likely true or probable, why should we entertain the notion as anything more than a notion at all?

Our senses only allow for a certain representation of reality. The "human" one. But couldn't I argue that the objectivity we speak of is still in some way rooted in our subjectivity, influenced by our ideas, our concepts, our language and meanings. We throw at it these human creations such as words and numbers and like to think these tools are sufficient to have figured it all out. Is objective reality just a human consensus model?

I don't believe so, no. The fact that fish see the world different to us does not make the standard model of particle physics change, for fish or for anything else. The fact that some alien species perceives completely different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to us would not and can not make one iota of difference to the wave particle duality of light.

People like to say 'Anything is possible' as if that gives free reign to any crackpot idea they have in mind. However, 'anything' really isn't possible. For instance, is it possible to roll a 7 on a six sided dice? The rules of the universe don't change just because you have a different point of view.

Well I say that. There is nothing to stop someone cheating and doing mental gymnastics with wordplay to make it seem like it's technically possible. If you squint your eyes, and turn your head to the side and... But no. Just... no.

Not only that, what moment in time do we really exist in? Sounds like a simple question with a simple answer. But is it? I've heard the past and future don't really exist; that they are just concepts, ideas, figments of the imagination. Feels right to say we only live in the present. But do we- It takes time for the objective instantaneous reality to be processed by our sensory equipment and brain. So in "reality" it seems we may actually live in the past; in the wake of time. How can this be? And what of the discovery that our brain makes decisions 6-10 seconds before we are even aware of them. What does this say about an existence completely dependent on awareness and decision making?

This is all very philosophical and everything. Deep in a 'stoner' sense, I suppose. I tried to say that without rolling my eyes, but failed..

The thing about time and space is it's all relative. Einstein established this with his theory of special relativity. Watch the new Cosmos, I think Neil talked about this in the 3rd or 4th episode.

It's a bit of a difficult one to pin down, with more than one school of thought on the matter. There is the Newtonian view, that time itself is a dimension independent of events.Then there is Kant's view that it is simply a human concept - our own way of ordering things in a chronology.

I tend to subscribe to the latter view, that time is just the passage of events (or the movement of particles), and yes that is subjective, but do not discount the former either. There is definitely a subjective component to our perception of it - take for instance metabolism. Species with metabolisms many times faster than ours view the world in slow motion compared to ourselves, while the opposite also holds true.

But i also believe there is an objective side to it which can not be ignored. Special relativity demonstrates this.

But what I really would like to know is, what really is a banana in the objective reality?

The banana is the Atheist's Nightmare, of course.. I know I lay awake at night worrying about bananas all the time..

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

The scientific method is the best way we have of determining what is true, and (though this is not my area of study) generally speaking we expect the standard model of particle physics to be true throughout the cosmos for the universe to make any sort of sense to us.

Until they encounter black holes. Then everything we've made up about particle physics- well physics in general- go right down the black hole drain....

But this goes back to the argument from ignorance fallacy - just because there is a gap in our knowledge it does not mean that any crazy idea should be accepted as anything more than a crazy idea.

I agree.

I don't believe so, no. The fact that fish see the world different to us does not make the standard model of particle physics change, for fish or for anything else. The fact that some alien species perceives completely different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to us would not and can not make one iota of difference to the wave particle duality of light.

I understand your point, and tend to agree with you. But isn't the wave particle duality of light just a human construct- carved from human ideas and concepts, using our words and numbers? Thus the objective reality, for me, seems impossible to pin down when we can only experience, observe and try to explain it from a limited subjective view point. We have to come to a consensus (peer review) on what we are measuring to be sure that what we are observing is what we are observing. But the universe will always appeal to our subjective experience of it. I know we like to think that we know so much and that the scientific method will triumph. And granted it has done a lot for us as humans to explain our existence from our little planet in a very obscure part of a huge galaxy. Relatively speaking though, it's the equivalent of an epithelial cell trying to understand that it's one of trillions that make up just a part of a human body.

This is all very philosophical and everything. Deep in a 'stoner' sense, I suppose. I tried to say that without rolling my eyes, but failed..

Nope, these are ideas of a sober mind I'm afraid. Philosophical, yeah somewhat. Don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes too far back.

The thing about time and space is it's all relative. Einstein established this with his theory of special relativity. Watch the new Cosmos, I think Neil talked about this in the 3rd or 4th episode.

Great show.

The banana is the Atheist's Nightmare, of course.. I know I lay awake at night worrying about bananas all the time..

The funny and very true thing is I had never heard of the Banana Fallacy until you mentioned it, let alone it being a reference to ID. What are the odds

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Respectfully (because I have enjoyed the chat) I nevertheless regard the conversation on subjectivity vs objectivity as the equivalent of the old 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it.. does it really fall?' philosophical chestnut. To me it's just mental masturbation (and of course the tree still falls!). Who cares what may be true - lets just get on with what is, as far as we can tell, true.

Oh and the banana fallacy isn't an actual fallacy (in that its not a properly recognised one) in itself - it's just Ray Comfort and his creationist celebrity buddy Kirk Cameron being true grade A prize fools for thinking that the banana is 'undeniable proof of God's design' (or something equally moronic - I can't recall the exact words, I think because I was screaming into my monitor "You retarded monkeys!" at the time..). Ray and Kirk clearly did not know or understand at the time that the banana is a product of artificial selection by man, they think it is entirely natural and so view it as part of their greater misunderstanding of the anthropic principle itself.

If you have never seen the video I wholeheartedly recommend you watch it. It's hilarious. Heck, I may as well link it since it is actually relevant to this thread (2 creationist arsehats claiming the banana is an example of how Intelligent Design is self evident)

Enjoy..

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


"Or does it make a sound.." I guess is the proper version... but yeah anyway, same thing.. mental masturbation.

@OP: Its a nice OP, thanks. I create a plane, then there is a plane. It follows that things initially come into existence through creation. Makes perfect sense.

But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

How can we know, or prove, what that objective reality really is, let alone declare the uniformity of it, or lack there of, across all of the cosmos- a place that we haven't come close to observing/understanding in its totality? (funny I called it a place, but that's just my subjective notion of it. Objectively, the universe could be a completely different concept, like a dimension, beyond our capabilities of describing it.) We can't even come to an agreement on what reality is.

The scientific method is the best way we have of determining what is true, and (though this is not my area of study) generally speaking we expect the standard model of particle physics to be true throughout the cosmos for the universe to make any sort of sense to us.

Are there gaps in our knowledge? Yep. Could there be all sorts of unexpected phenomena and surprises out there which throw physics on it's head? Absolutely.

But this goes back to the argument from ignorance fallacy - just because there is a gap in our knowledge it does not mean that any crazy idea should be accepted as anything more than a crazy idea.

Until we have reason to believe something is likely true or probable, why should we entertain the notion as anything more than a notion at all?

Our senses only allow for a certain representation of reality. The "human" one. But couldn't I argue that the objectivity we speak of is still in some way rooted in our subjectivity, influenced by our ideas, our concepts, our language and meanings. We throw at it these human creations such as words and numbers and like to think these tools are sufficient to have figured it all out. Is objective reality just a human consensus model?

I don't believe so, no. The fact that fish see the world different to us does not make the standard model of particle physics change, for fish or for anything else. The fact that some alien species perceives completely different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to us would not and can not make one iota of difference to the wave particle duality of light.

People like to say 'Anything is possible' as if that gives free reign to any crackpot idea they have in mind. However, 'anything' really isn't possible. For instance, is it possible to roll a 7 on a six sided dice? The rules of the universe don't change just because you have a different point of view.

Well I say that. There is nothing to stop someone cheating and doing mental gymnastics with wordplay to make it seem like it's technically possible. If you squint your eyes, and turn your head to the side and... But no. Just... no.

Not only that, what moment in time do we really exist in? Sounds like a simple question with a simple answer. But is it? I've heard the past and future don't really exist; that they are just concepts, ideas, figments of the imagination. Feels right to say we only live in the present. But do we- It takes time for the objective instantaneous reality to be processed by our sensory equipment and brain. So in "reality" it seems we may actually live in the past; in the wake of time. How can this be? And what of the discovery that our brain makes decisions 6-10 seconds before we are even aware of them. What does this say about an existence completely dependent on awareness and decision making?

This is all very philosophical and everything. Deep in a 'stoner' sense, I suppose. I tried to say that without rolling my eyes, but failed..

The thing about time and space is it's all relative. Einstein established this with his theory of special relativity. Watch the new Cosmos, I think Neil talked about this in the 3rd or 4th episode.

It's a bit of a difficult one to pin down, with more than one school of thought on the matter. There is the Newtonian view, that time itself is a dimension independent of events.Then there is Kant's view that it is simply a human concept - our own way of ordering things in a chronology.

I tend to subscribe to the latter view, that time is just the passage of events (or the movement of particles), and yes that is subjective, but do not discount the former either. There is definitely a subjective component to our perception of it - take for instance metabolism. Species with metabolisms many times faster than ours view the world in slow motion compared to ourselves, while the opposite also holds true.

But i also believe there is an objective side to it which can not be ignored. Special relativity demonstrates this.

But what I really would like to know is, what really is a banana in the objective reality?

The banana is the Atheist's Nightmare, of course.. I know I lay awake at night worrying about bananas all the time..

edit on RAmerica/Chicago30uTue, 01 Apr 2014 23:15:54 -05004-0500fCDT11 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: ..

so you are saying we don't know crap? thought so.

you bloviate about nothing.

reply to post by tsingtao


You could say that we are all agnostics, yes. Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.

None of us know absolutely with regards to a diety. The religious people who say they know do not. The people on the side of science do not either.

The difference is, the scientific side admit the extent of their nescience.

tsingtao
so you are saying we don't know crap? thought so.

you bloviate about nothing.

Wy ask a question if you have a prefabricated answer? I would've bought into the ' so we're full of crap' line if it were followed by your reasoning and a counter point as opposed to what you actually stated. When you get right down to it, nothing resembling a statement defaming your knowledge or intellect was involved there, that I could see. Perhaps you could explain exactly which portion you took umbrage with so that it could add to the discussion as opposed to it devolving into a battle of wits instead of a discourse of sharing knowledge. I seriously doubt either side will be swayed by any of the arguments but I always like to see where the other person is coming from. Just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned from you and your perspective. Hostility just want get ny of us there though.

Here are some pertinent portions of the post you were offended by and I see nothing that implies you don't know crap and in fact it follows the reAoning of the scientific method. Just to play devils advocate for a moment, no matter how the science is presented its always problematic with the theists. If it is presented as 100% factual it is received as arrogant and lacking credibility. If people present it as if its the best knowledge as we currently have and understand it based on the most recent data and facts its then received as somewhat ignorant and countered by things like " how can you be so sure when science isn't even sure of itself when it keeps changing". At that point it appears that nothing short of full agreement that not just a deity but only a Christian deity, is the acceptable answer.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Are there gaps in our knowledge? Yep. Could there be all sorts of unexpected phenomena and surprises out there which throw physics on it's head? Absolutely.

But this goes back to the argument from ignorance fallacy - just because there is a gap in our knowledge it does not mean that any crazy idea should be accepted as anything more than a crazy idea.

Until we have reason to believe something is likely true or probable, why should we entertain the notion as anything more than a notion at all?

People like to say 'Anything is possible' as if that gives free reign to any crackpot idea they have in mind. However, 'anything' really isn't possible. For instance, is it possible to roll a 7 on a six sided dice? The rules of the universe don't change just because you have a different point of view.

The thing about time and space is it's all relative. Einstein established this with his theory of special relativity. Watch the new Cosmos, I think Neil talked about this in the 3rd or 4th episode.

What I'm seeing is an admission that no, physicists do not know everything about the universe, its origins or how it fully works. At least not yet.

I see an appeal to logic that people try to understand that crafting an opinion not based on any evidence isn't a notion that should be entertained if the hypothesis is not testable.

None of that looks to me like an implication, that those who believe that the Christian god is responsible for everything we know and see, don't know crap. Just my take on it.

reply to post by neoholographic


good thread..thank you.

People are blind. They are bored when they find a seemingly "cause" because they think they really found a "cause".

But every scientist know that no real cause was found until now for anything. Because you will always find a cause for the cause.

Its like a fractal...

so...

Yes intelligence can not be found IN anything..but as everything...

Skyfloating
But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

I can certainly see your point and how irritating it is if that is the constant rebuttal supplied and I've seen it enough times to realize that for some its almost an automatic response. If I could relate a personal anecdote without causing consternation, in the 'Worshipping Satan' thread you called me out for making a similar statement in reply to a direct question from the OP there. I don't want to make an assumption but the impression I got was you based your sentiment off of that one, singular interaction whereas I had written a somewhat lengthy post detailing what LaVeyan satanists believe. One of the most basic beliefs in that philosophy is that Satan is merely a metaphor and allegory for ones inner personality and their desires. Without going much more off topic, if you had read my lengthier post it would have been more clear what I was talking about and wasn't merely being dismissive or childish. But as I said, I can certainly see how it appears as such particularly after it being repeated like a mantra at you for a decade.

reply to post by peter vlar


No one likes to have their sacred cows challenged.

However they completely fail to see the other side. As non-religious folk, we find many views expressed by the devout extremely arrogant, ignorant and insulting as well, and the sheer amount of ways in which religion (and in a western society that is going to be mostly christianity) pervades everyday life is staggering.

In this forum particularly, the way ignorance is celebrated is, frankly, disturbing. If I can contribute even a tiny bit towards greater understanding, then it's worth the few ruffled feathers of the indignant.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Enjoy..

edit on RAmerica/Chicago30uWed, 02 Apr 2014 02:02:47 -05004-0500fCDT02 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Because moar

Oh man, that was very funny. Thanks for that. Even Kirk couldn't help it...

But about that tree thingy, objective vs subjective; whether you like it or not, or degrade it or not- the tree doesn't make a sound if no one is there to hear it.. but alas, that's a debate for another thread

reply to post by peter vlar


I`ve read enough of your posts that you are not among the "childish response atheists" I was referring to. Some of your posts are a pleasure to read

Skyfloating
@OP: Its a nice OP, thanks. I create a plane, then there is a plane. It follows that things initially come into existence through creation. Makes perfect sense.

But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

Now that is one powerful piece of truth right there...

The sad thing is that there is only two stars on that post when there ought to be many more.

Apparently Churchill was right...

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
- Winston Churchill

Skyfloating

But you want to know what actually convinced me of the ID crowd? 10 years of seeing the completely spiteful, mocking and ignorant behavior of atheists/evolutionists on online forums, with their childish remarks on "you believe in the toothfairy, nanananana!"

Seeing such a stark contrast in mentality, decency, respect and kindness makes it pretty obvious which if these sides have refined and cultured minds and which are of more simple and coarse intelligence.

That's an incredibly poor way to determine whether or not a claim is true.....

A claim rests entirely upon the evidence presented........how offended you are is completely irrelevant.

Prezbo369

A claim rests entirely upon the evidence presented........how offended you are is completely irrelevant.

Also known as the argumentum ad butthurtium fallacy.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by tsingtao

 

You could say that we are all agnostics, yes. Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.

None of us know absolutely with regards to a diety. The religious people who say they know do not. The people on the side of science do not either.

The difference is, the scientific side admit the extent of their nescience.

edit on RAmerica/Chicago30000000Wed, 02 Apr 2014 07:32:24 -05004-0500fCDT07 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: ..

agnostics might as well call themselves atheists or believers.

you believe or you don't. simple. not claim you don't know enough. weak stuff.

science is fumbling around with the mechanics of this reality.
believers have a solid faith. how it works is not a big concern. why should we? you find out the HOW and we will figure out the WHY.

doesn't science claim that what happens here on earth will happen in a galaxy far far away? the "laws" don't change with light years.

every christian i know, is NOT science illiterate, including me.

skyfloating has it nailed.

peter vlar

tsingtao
so you are saying we don't know crap? thought so.

you bloviate about nothing.

Wy ask a question if you have a prefabricated answer? I would've bought into the ' so we're full of crap' line if it were followed by your reasoning and a counter point as opposed to what you actually stated. When you get right down to it, nothing resembling a statement defaming your knowledge or intellect was involved there, that I could see. Perhaps you could explain exactly which portion you took umbrage with so that it could add to the discussion as opposed to it devolving into a battle of wits instead of a discourse of sharing knowledge. I seriously doubt either side will be swayed by any of the arguments but I always like to see where the other person is coming from. Just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned from you and your perspective. Hostility just want get ny of us there though.

Here are some pertinent portions of the post you were offended by and I see nothing that implies you don't know crap and in fact it follows the reAoning of the scientific method. Just to play devils advocate for a moment, no matter how the science is presented its always problematic with the theists. If it is presented as 100% factual it is received as arrogant and lacking credibility. If people present it as if its the best knowledge as we currently have and understand it based on the most recent data and facts its then received as somewhat ignorant and countered by things like " how can you be so sure when science isn't even sure of itself when it keeps changing". At that point it appears that nothing short of full agreement that not just a deity but only a Christian deity, is the acceptable answer.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Are there gaps in our knowledge? Yep. Could there be all sorts of unexpected phenomena and surprises out there which throw physics on it's head? Absolutely.

But this goes back to the argument from ignorance fallacy - just because there is a gap in our knowledge it does not mean that any crazy idea should be accepted as anything more than a crazy idea.

Until we have reason to believe something is likely true or probable, why should we entertain the notion as anything more than a notion at all?

People like to say 'Anything is possible' as if that gives free reign to any crackpot idea they have in mind. However, 'anything' really isn't possible. For instance, is it possible to roll a 7 on a six sided dice? The rules of the universe don't change just because you have a different point of view.

The thing about time and space is it's all relative. Einstein established this with his theory of special relativity. Watch the new Cosmos, I think Neil talked about this in the 3rd or 4th episode.

What I'm seeing is an admission that no, physicists do not know everything about the universe, its origins or how it fully works. At least not yet.

I see an appeal to logic that people try to understand that crafting an opinion not based on any evidence isn't a notion that should be entertained if the hypothesis is not testable.

None of that looks to me like an implication, that those who believe that the Christian god is responsible for everything we know and see, don't know crap. Just my take on it.

i like this post. let science do it's job and let us (believers) do ours.

i don't see a conflict at all.

explain how God did it, that would be great. lol! was it magic or not?

reply to post by tsingtao


Gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowing, theism/atheism is about believing.

I don't believe that there is a 3 headed pink elephant sitting just outside of the observable universe but I cannot know that this isn't the case because it conveniently resides in a location that is outside the realm of objective observation.

Just like I don't believe that your god happens to not only exist but be the only one out of all the thousands of other gods to be real but I cannot know because he conveniently keeps himself outside the realm of objective observation.