NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Yukon Cornelius]

how many times has it been rewritten, the bible i mean ...

[Yukon Cornelius]

Do you like bananas, ape boy?

i like having the ability to throw poop at people

[TimC]

i like having the ability to throw poop at people

 

Damn dirty apes that forgot to evolve.

[evil_gop_liars]

(sigh)

 

I wasn't copying any sort of original idea if that is what you are trying to infer. You should really do some reading yourself before trying to poke disinterest toward things you obviously don't understand. And besides, 90% of what I wrote above is my own thoughts but using examples from previous well-known literature -- which I assumed most of you should know about if you are to intelligently argue one way or another in this thread. It's only natural someone is going to reference previous knowledgeable readings from their past, especially when discussing philosophical type subjects, so why is it so difficult for you to understand and see that here? And how does what you have to say provide any sort of beneficial knowledge to countering or agreeing to any argument posted in this thread? Simply telling me that other people have written very closely related pieces of work that I am talking about doesn't disprove anything that I have mentioned. Which you obviously already know because you are throwing around some off-the-topic smokescreen to take attention away from your own lack of knowledge in something. The problem is you don't realize that in your case the best thing to do here is not say anything at all. That way nobody knows how lackluster your thoughts really are.

 

Leave the condescending prickness to Az. You're really no good at it, in fact your down right laughable.

[cre8tiff]

Maybe we should start using this thread to organize online Risk games. That would finally kill it.

[TheGrunt]

Leave the condescending prickness to Az. You're really no good at it, in fact your down right laughable.

Thanks for your input. Next, please.

[The Irish Doggy]

Maybe we should start using this thread to organize online Risk games. That would finally kill it.

 

 

Wait, wait, you can play Risk online? I've not heard of this before.

[TimC]

Maybe we should start using this thread to organize online Risk games. That would finally kill it.

 

I know. I miss playing Risk.

[TheGrunt]

Can't we all just agree that there is no God, and that you religious people should stop this silly undying faith you have? Is that so hard to agree on?

The problem when one is to argue for or against the argument of intelligent design, many people consider this a threat or advance in the argument for religion. While the implications of arguing one way or another in this thread may suggest a person is or is not religious, I'm surprised more people haven't realized the philosophical problem being discussed is to be argued through reason and knowledge, not to be confused with faith - something a religious person may base their opinion of the existence of God with. This is not using reason, however, and I cannot stress enough how useless it is to argue for or against someone's personal faith, because you can't. Why? Because using faith as a premise to argue a point will be acceptable only to someone who already accepts the conclusion (that God exists), and the argument itself will have no point.

 

I'm simply trying to provide a philosophical standpoint on this discussion, staying as far away as possible to assuming the notion that God exists using faith as a premise without conclusive reason.

[evil_gop_liars]

The problem when one is to argue for or against the argument of intelligent design, many people consider this a threat or advance in the argument for religion. While the implications of arguing one way or another in this thread may suggest a person is or is not religious, I'm surprised more people haven't realized the philosophical problem being discussed is to be argued through reason and knowledge, not to be confused with faith - something a religious person may base their opinion of the existence of God with. This is not using reason, however, and I cannot stress enough how useless it is to argue for or against someone's personal faith, because you can't. Why? Because using faith as a premise to argue a point will be acceptable only to someone who already accepts the conclusion (that God exists), and the argument itself will have no point.

 

I'm simply trying to provide a philosophical standpoint on this discussion, staying as far away as possible to assuming the notion that God exists using faith as a premise without conclusive reason.

 

You're so wise.

[Kid Cid]

The problem when one is to argue for or against the argument of intelligent design, many people consider this a threat or advance in the argument for religion. While the implications of arguing one way or another in this thread may suggest a person is or is not religious, I'm surprised more people haven't realized the philosophical problem being discussed is to be argued through reason and knowledge, not to be confused with faith - something a religious person may base their opinion of the existence of God with. This is not using reason, however, and I cannot stress enough how useless it is to argue for or against someone's personal faith, because you can't. Why? Because using faith as a premise to argue a point will be acceptable only to someone who already accepts the conclusion (that God exists), and the argument itself will have no point.

 

I'm simply trying to provide a philosophical standpoint on this discussion, staying as far away as possible to assuming the notion that God exists using faith as a premise without conclusive reason.

OK, so to bring this back to the original discussion point, kinda, sorta...

 

A discussion on whether or not there is an intelligent designer may be worthwhile from a philosophical standpoint except that the people advancing ID to be taught in our schools have already passed that point and made the leap to faith. They KNOW the designer exists, they KNOW this designer is God, they KNOW this is the same God as described in the Bible and dadgummit so will everyone else once they're done educating them.

[I Like Soup]

I know. I miss playing Risk.

Me too...

[Yukon Cornelius]

and dadgummit so will everyone else once they're done educating them.

yah it worked in the past

[cre8tiff]

Me too...

We all DID buy YEAR subscriptions, right? Anyone in for a game?

 

Drop Game

1282663

Standard

Sequential

Classic

Flat Rate

Adjacent

No (What the heck is fog of war?)

 

pw: huddle

Edited November 27, 2007 by cre8tiff

[BiggieFries]

We all DID buy YEAR subscriptions, right? Anyone in for a game?

 

Drop Game

1282663

Standard

Sequential

Classic

Flat Rate

Adjacent

No (What the heck is fog of war?)

 

pw: huddle

 

If it's like the same "Fog of War" from Warcraft, then it's a colored "fog" that covers the battlefield so you can only see a certain distance from where you're standing.

[I Like Soup]

We all DID buy YEAR subscriptions, right? Anyone in for a game?

 

Drop Game

1282663

Standard

Sequential

Classic

Flat Rate

Adjacent

No (What the heck is fog of war?)

 

pw: huddle

In.

 

 

ETA: oh...and go find your ghey friend TimCat and maybe detlef and I can pwned y'all again...

Edited November 27, 2007 by I Like Soup

[nickspicks]

how many times has it been rewritten, the bible i mean ...

 

Plenty. A version for this king, that ruler, that country, this time period, that time period... A book of short stories for the sheep to follow for they dare not think outside the leather sheath it's wrapped in.

[Easy n Dirty]

Me too...

 

 

You guys stopped playing? Why?

[Pope Flick]

The problem when one is to argue for or against the argument of intelligent design, many people consider this a threat or advance in the argument for religion. While the implications of arguing one way or another in this thread may suggest a person is or is not religious, I'm surprised more people haven't realized the philosophical problem being discussed is to be argued through reason and knowledge, not to be confused with faith - something a religious person may base their opinion of the existence of God with. This is not using reason, however, and I cannot stress enough how useless it is to argue for or against someone's personal faith, because you can't. Why? Because using faith as a premise to argue a point will be acceptable only to someone who already accepts the conclusion (that God exists), and the argument itself will have no point.

 

I'm simply trying to provide a philosophical standpoint on this discussion, staying as far away as possible to assuming the notion that God exists using faith as a premise without conclusive reason.

 

 

Yeah, but Grunt many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

 

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

 

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[nickspicks]

Well, on one level or another that's a question that's been circulating as part of this thread. It's clear that you either don't have an answer or chose not to answer the question, which amounts to the same thing.

 

And what you have typed is clearly the answer. I answered the question with Post No. 530. Like I typed before, mine is just as plausible, or down-right ridiculous, as the spew you type.

[TheGrunt]

OK, so to bring this back to the original discussion point, kinda, sorta...

 

A discussion on whether or not there is an intelligent designer may be worthwhile from a philosophical standpoint except that the people advancing ID to be taught in our schools have already passed that point and made the leap to faith. They KNOW the designer exists, they KNOW this designer is God, they KNOW this is the same God as described in the Bible and dadgummit so will everyone else once they're done educating them.

So even though I've offered a reasonable explanation, using Stephen Gould's example of the Panda's thumb (happy bushwacked?) to argue against intelligent design, how can you--without reason--assume the latter option, that God must exist?

 

Suggesting that the people (all of them?) advancing Intelligent Design to be taught in our school system are all of a sudden beyond the point of reason and "made the leap to faith" is not the most convincing stance to take - in fact, it's wrong. Most philosophers will actually take pleasure in confronting an argument, and the best way to do so is by trying to prove yourself wrong. If you can do that, then there is something wrong with your claim and you need to adjust accordingly. And besides, simply saying that you, without a doubt, KNOW an independent intelligent designer exists won't change what is possibly not true at all. It may be true, but simply saying it's true does nothing to offer justifiable truth of its existence or not.

 

So, to be fair, I'll take your side in the discussion that God exists. However, to do so, we must first define who God is: A personal being who is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, benevolent, just, and the creator of the universe. That is, God is almighty or infinite in power, with unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding of all things, and just as importantly, a perfectly good and just being.

 

Under these accepted guidelines we have our first issue to counter the claim that God exists. The problem of Evil. Philosopher David Hume brings attention to an argument against the existence of God, the problem of evil. What is meant by "evil"--? Misery, harm, or human suffering. Obviously there are two types of evil; moral evil, caused by humans, and physical evil, caused by acts of nature. I'll remind you that this is a defeasible argument, however, the issue being raised here is whether God's goodness (mercy and benevolence, and perhaps justice) are the very same qualities (though a more perfect version of them) that we assign as moral and ethical principles to human beings. The bible even says were are made in the image of God. But if not, what would be the point or justification of using those terms to describe God?

 

So, the problem of the existence of evil is this: Is God (a perfectly good and just being) willing to prevent evil, but not able to? This indicates God is lacking the power or ability to prevent evil. Is he able, but not willing? This would indicate God is malevolent, showing ill will, or wishing evil or harm to others. Is he both able and willing? If this is the case, from what place, source, or cause then is evil?

 

This brings me to J.L. Mackie's claim, that the advancer for the argument of intelligent design must accept three inconsistent claims:

(1) God is omnipotent

(2) God is wholly good

(3) Evil exists

 

If "good cannot exist without evil", or "evil is necessary as a counterpart to good", is the fact that we would not otherwise have noticed "good" a compelling reason for God to permit evil? Is this enough of a compelling reason for permitting the degree and quantity of evil that actually exists? On the other hand, if all the evil that actually exists were really necessary for some good purpose, then, consequently, wouldn't human efforts to reduce evil in fact be making the world as a whole worse?

[cre8tiff]

We all DID buy YEAR subscriptions, right? Anyone in for a game?

 

Drop Game

1282663

Standard

Sequential

Classic

Flat Rate

Adjacent

No (What the heck is fog of war?)

 

pw: huddle

 

One spot left!

[cre8tiff]

If "good cannot exist without evil", or "evil is necessary as a counterpart to good", is the fact that we would not otherwise have noticed "good" a compelling reason for God to permit evil? Is this enough of a compelling reason for permitting the degree and quantity of evil that actually exists? On the other hand, if all the evil that actually exists were really necessary for some good purpose, then, consequently, wouldn't human efforts to reduce evil in fact be making the world as a whole worse?

 

Good and evil are metaphors for the animalistic and reasoning sides of the duality of Man. The devil is drawn with horns and acts on pure emotion, "Take that. Kill that.", wholly driven by the beastial side. Angels are drawn with halos encircling the seat of reason, the brain. They act on the higher order, reason, empathy. There really isn't "good" or "evil". It is man or beast. The words of Jesus and God all point to the need to separate yourself from the beasts. Some would like to believe God waved a wand and created man separately. I doubt that. It makes more sense to me He gave us the power over time to evolve from the bestial past, and when we manage to get it right, He could be revealed.

 

The problem with MY religion is I don't depend on fables written 2000 years ago to convince people who still thought slaughtering animals appeased gods. But it is of no matter. Jesus taught that religion is a personal thing, and each person must find thier own path to righteousness.

Edited November 28, 2007 by cre8tiff

[I Like Soup]

You guys stopped playing? Why?

I've been traveling more as far as work so it was starting to get dicey as far as missing moves, which I hate.

[TheGrunt]

Good and evil are metaphors for the animalistic and reasoning sides of the duality of Man. The devil is drawn with horns and acts on pure emotion, "Take that. Kill that.", wholly driven by the beastial side. Angels are drawn with halos encircling the seat of reason, the brain. They act on the higher order, reason, empathy. There really isn't "good" or "evil". It is man or beast. The words of Jesus and God all point to the need to separate yourself from the beasts. Some would like to believe God waved a wand and created man separately. I doubt that. It makes more sense to me He gave us the power over time to evolve from the bestial past, and when we manage to get it right, He could be revealed.

 

The problem with MY religion is I don't depend on fables written 2000 years ago to convince people who still thought slaughtering animals appeased gods. But it is of no matter. Jesus taught that religion is a personal thing, and each person must find thier own path to righteousness.

If good and evil are metaphors for the man or bestial side of humans, you are essentially making an implicit comparison between the two; so regardless of whether you call it a bestial side or reasoning side of the duality of humans, you are still arguing that good and evil do exist. Opposite of the scientific problem such as evolution, which might be solved by further observations, this presents a logical problem, the problem of clarifying and reconciling a number of beliefs. In it's simplest form, J.L. Mackie presents the problem like so: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet, evil exists. Whether evil is metaphorically described as the bestial side of humans or not, it exists.

 

So, the problem of the existence of evil still remains an issue. As mentioned previously, is God (a perfectly good and just being) willing to prevent evil, but not able to? This indicates God is lacking the power or ability to prevent evil. Is he able, but not willing? This would indicate God is malevolent, showing ill will, or wishing evil or harm to others. Is he both able and willing? If this is the case, from what place, source, or cause then is evil?