Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Thanks for your refreshing response.

I know many people who would say, ‘OK, so there may be an intelligent designer. So what?’ I stress that is not my personal opinion. In my view, who or what the intelligent designer is only significant to those with a religious belief. It’s not particularly significant to those who do not have a religious belief, or certainly not as significant.

Think I covered this. I’m sure we both have!

[/QUOTE]

 

[buffalo]

What science? You have no clue what science is. You claim that Mr. Dumbski developed a device which can tell if something is “designed” or not. We accept your claim as legitimate. We can accept this claim as a working hypothesis - because that is how real science works. It does not matter how outlandish a claim sounds (within reason of course) it can be investigated and see if the claim delivers what it claims. And then we start to look into the details… and your “device” is going up in smoke… not fireworks!

First problem: where is this device? Is there a working prototype? Nope, there is none.

Then we demand - according to real science - to see the calibration of this “hypothetical” device, to see if it can tell a designed object apart from a random, haphazard arrangement of objects. So I presented a collection of symbols, and asked you to point your “device” at them, and figure out if there is a “design” behind them, or are they just a random collection of symbols. You are unable to do it. (By the way, I still chuckle when I see your futile efforts to figure it out). One of these days, if you grovel and ask nicely, I might tell you the solution.

Then you presented this ID-iotic principle that “complexity equals design”. No argument for it, just presented as a basic principle. As if: “simple thing = no design” and “complex thing = design”. So I show you a simple triangle designed by a child, and your “CSI meter” cannot see the design. Then I show you an extremely complex arrangement: “the Mandelbrot set” or the “human society” and your “CSI meter” is dumbfounded… it cannot see that these configuration are all “undesigned”. Of course you fail to define the “level of complexity” which will separate the “designed” from the “undesigned” -which makes your whole approach a matter of laugh.

So… you have been “had” by this snake-oil peddler of “Dumbski”. There is no CSI, no meter, only a futile desire to find a design, where there is none.

An then you deliver your final irrationality and say that the “whole universe was designed”! How pathetic. First you try to “prove” God existence through “design”, and when it fails, then you reverse the idea, and say that everything was designed - thus making your “CSI-meter” irrelevant.

As for the idea of “complexity” which some other “ID-iots” cannot comprehend. A “thing” seems to be complex, if you are not familiar with its details, and the rules that govern it. If you look at the instument panel of an airplane, it is mind-bogglingly “complicated” - BECAUSE you are not familiar with it. If you hear a conversation conducted in a foreign language it sounds like gibberish, because your ears and your mind are not familiar with the pattern. For the pilots and for those who already speak the language there is no “complexity”, only a familiar, simple playground. Complexity is not an inherent attribute, rather it is the result of the patterns of the object AND the knowledge of the observer. For someone who knows the details, everything is simple. For someone who is not familiar with the system, everything is complicated. And your “precious” and stupID Dumbski cannot understand it.

Summary: you are as far from science as you can be. Your “guru”, Mr. Dumbski is an IDiot. There is no CSI meter, there is no way to detect “design”. You may believe that the universe was “designed”, but there is no supporting argument for it. It is all blind faith. And there is NO need for such a support, since you already believe that everything was designed.

Since you are resorting to personal attacks I will not correspond with you any further.

1. It is an indication of lack of real argument
2. against forum rules
3. I don’'t care to debate in this fashion.

 

[buffalo]

Are We Reaching a Consensus that “You Know What” is Past its Prime?

I’m surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating to the position that its power is a thing of the past. The convenience of that stance, of course, is that it enables them to insist that natural selection was a powerful mechanism without committing themselves to the more risky proposition that it still is.

Laurence Moran is among those who seem to favor this approach, at least as I interpret his recent post.

Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin’s mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we’ve presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.

more…

 

[prodigalson2011]

This is what I mean by love for yourself. You are so right, and in love with yourself you can’t understand how insulting this is. I may as well just argue - Hey I can’t help you if you don’t understand why I don’t understand your tripe. I can’t really do your homework for you. If you don’t understand the distinctions then brush up and come back. Sounds pretty insulting doesn’t it? Of course not - you’ll tell me why it isn’t I’m sure.

Ya know, they say the things we despise most in others are the things we deny about ourselves:

Manray:

I think it’s awesome when theists refer to their god thing as “intelligent”…If you really think about it…well…let’s just say that - in and of itself - is enough for me to get a little tickled.

I invite you to review this and any number of disparaging remarks I’ve observed you make in this and other threads. As to my comment, I actually HAVE had people in other debates tell me pretty much the same thing, and honestly, I didn’t take offense to it. Your reiteration was fine until you got to the word tripe.

This is what I wrote in relation to design. It’s a fairly cohesive response in line with what many other philosophers have concluded …but of course they should just do more home work. Whatever.

The problem with the Kalam cosmological argument is that while the first premise in and of itself may be true, It makes the categorical mistake of confusing a set with a subset, and vice versa. The theist says that whatever “thing” - the word thing is important - that begins to exist must have a cause. The theist, then, switches that “thing” to “the universe.” The problem, here, is that it may be inappropriate to treat the universe in the same way one treats some “thing” within the universe. Let’s say that I have a number set in the form of 2,4,6,8… From studying “inside” the set, I can draw the conclusion that every thing is two counts away from the next thing. My statement is perfectly valid inside the set. Two is two counts from four, four is two counts from six, etc. The problem is that the rule that is valid within a particular set is not necessarily valid of the whole set itself. Let’s say that my set above is in a list of sets. Set 1 is in the form 1,2,3,4 … the set I mentioned above is Set 2, the next set in the list, Set 3, is in the form 3,6,9,12 . . …and so on, and so on. The Kalam argument is attempting to presuppose an axiom where none exists. A rule from the subset 2 says everything is two counts away from the next thing, but if I applied this rule to the whole set itself, however… my statement would not be true. Set 2 is neither two counts away from Set 1 nor two counts away from Set 3. This is exactly what the theist is doing when he goes from the statement that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,” leading to his next statement and conclusion that “The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” but this argument treats the universe as a “thing,” and not “the set of all things.” This is a categorical mistake. This always falls back on my argument that in my opinion no theist has ever reconciled. You can’t appeal to logic that exists within the parameters of the physical universe to explain this god thing that exists outside of it all. IT’S ABSURDITY OF THE HIGHEST KIND. Clearly - If I asked a theist to prove his statement, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,” he would have to appeal to things inside the physical universe. He might say that a flood is caused by torrential rains…etc…etc… This statement is a physical statement that relies on induction and on physical laws. In other words, the first premise is not a tautology (though it may seem to be one), but rather an empirical statement demonstrated by induction. The problem comes when the theist tries to apply natural laws to the universe itself. He is doing the same thing that I did with the number sets above. He is finding a rule that is true inside the universe (i.e. inside “the set”) and saying that it must apply to the universe itself (i.e. to “the set” itself). There is no way to prove that this is the case, though. No way at all. There is no way to prove that a rule inside the set (i.e. the universe) must apply to the set itself. The Kalam argument falls apart if the first premise cannot be maintained categorically.

First, I note that you accuse the Kalam argument of the fallacy of composition. But the Kalam argument does NOT argue that because individual things within the universe begin to exist, therefore the universe began to exist. It argues this based on independently established logical principles, most importantly the principle that “something cannot come from nothing.” If you deny that the universe has a cause, then this is your only remaining option, and it is, I daresay, a much more absurd assertion than the existence of God.

Continuing, you say you can’t appeal to the logic of this universe to assert things outside of it. But this is patently false. For example, we can ascertain that there is no possible world where 2 and 2 makes 5. Likewise, while the patterns are different, every possible subset of your example adheres to the same basic mathematical (logical) principles. There are simply some principles that apply to any possible world.

In conclusion, saying that “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” is not appealing to some arbitrary rule within our universe. It is asserting a basic fact of logic.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You’re totally wrong. It’s not called the design argument. It’s called the INTELLIGENT DESIGN argument. There is no universal fixed notion of what this means. You have to honestly confront the argument. You are stating that a super perfect all powerful, all everything called god created this thing we call a universe, and the evidence is the complexity of it’s design. This is a flaw. The words: intelligent, complex, and even design really…are subjective to a knowledge borne, of cultural context. A time. A place. There are forces at work in relation to what we call “design” that have shaped it - evolutionarily borne from, need, utility, wants, etc…etc… No different than how a baby evolves environmentally. (which a theist will never cop to - even though it’s completely factual, and true).

You are building straw man after straw man. Those “forces at work” are precisely what those who stand behind “the design argument” (which is a totally separate endeavor from I.D. theory) are calling the design.

To make the distinction right now, the design argument is a philosophical enterprise. I.D. theory is an ostensibly empirical science.

Going back to the car. There is no universal objective notion regarding what kind of car is THE designed car.

Irrelevant. Each kind of car was designed, unquestionably. The cars didn’t shape themselves due to environmental factors. Someone designed it.

There are evolutions of different cars through different ages, that met the utility, and wants, etc…of a time.

Do you realize how absurd you sound? As though cars are out there, living independent lives, sexually reproducing, undergoing gene mutations which survive according to environmental pressures. Ridiculous. The cars are being designed by people. The changes are implemented by conscious intent.

Nature is NO different. I have a book called the Beak of the Finch where they document over a period of many years the shape differentials of the beak based on food sources, and environment etc… The Finch wasn’t designed - it conformed, evolved, and adapted.

Neither the design argument NOR EVEN I.D. theory asserts that every feature of every living thing was specifically designed. While I.D. theorists tend to be a bit more specific in their ascriptions of direct design, even they accept micro-evolution (the kind of adaptations you are describing) at a minimum, and some, Michael Behe included, accept the notion of the common descent of all species.

Are you arguing that this super perfect force in the universe took the time to design something, and just jacked it all up?..because we have went forwards, and backwards through the ages. There is no CLEAR intelligence in this thing you call design at all. There is no real design. This god would have to be the absolute worst. I could have done a better job. Seriously. Put a sabre tooth tiger in a room with a modern tiger, and we’ll see who is better “designed”…and yet that guy is extinct…hmph.

No. I don’t see why it is so hard to understand that the argument from design is that the principles that govern the universe ALTOGETHER are a design. In its modern iteration, just as scientists make computer programs that allow “digital creatures” to evolve freely, so the universe is a program that develops, somewhat freely, according to established rules. It’s not that complicated.

Someone who supports the argument from design (present author, for example) is free to believe that life emerged from the universe due to the design of the universe as a whole. The design is simply one that gradually unfolds.

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks for your refreshing response.
The Design argument was proposed by Plato and Anaxagoras who had no religious beliefs. They found it extremely significant as a counter-attack against the atomistic materialism of Leucippus and Democritus. Even Aristotle believed in final causes.

Are you sure Plato had no religious belief? I stand to be corrected but did Plato not argue God is the ultimate good? It could have been Socrates, but I have a vague recollection that in ‘The Republic’ Plato argued God is the ultimate good. However, my memory is now sketchy can I could be wrong. Must look it up.

I don’t doubt any of that. I’m not saying an atheist would not be interested in ID at all, or have not contributed.

To refute materialism is a considerable achievement. It undermines atheism, scepticism, relativism, pragmatism, subjectivism, cynicism, pessimism and nihilism, it provides a rational basis for belief in spiritual reality and the primacy of reason and puts purpose at the heart of existence.

This is my point. You say to refute materialism is a considerable achievement. I don’t doubt that and I am not criticizing that. But you say it is an achievement. What is the achievement? Getting an atheist to concede there may be a God perhaps? If that is the achievement, then ID has a religious agenda. If you say it provides a rational basis for belief in the spiritual, then something spiritual is incorporated into the purpose. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is not acknowledging that is the agenda if that is the agenda.

It is impossible to commence a discussion without making any philosophical assumptions. Dialogue implies belief in reason and the intelligibility of reality, both of which are incompatible with the hypothesis that the universe is irrational.

Does that not depend on what you are discussing? I can recall having a great discussion on the topic of, ‘Rudolf was a woman.’ We got into a whole debate about antlers and stuff. There was no purpose to the debate. Let’s face it, does it matter if Santa’s lead reindeer was female and not male? Nothing serious about it. It was just fun. However, I would argue it had a purpose. When we discuss such things it is fun, makes you think, enables you to articulate what you think and put up a rational argument. But at the end of the day, no one cares so no one falls out.

We should be prepared to accept the implications of statements we cannot refute. Every philosophical discussion is an adventure into the unknown and it is not unknown for people to change their minds - like Antony Flew, a prominent atheist for most of his life until confronted with the DNA information system.

It seems unfair to attribute an “agenda” to everyone who pursues a discussion about Design. If we have specialised in a subject we are interested in it for its own sake and welcome new insights even though they may weaken our own views. The beauty of philosophy is its unending richness and novelty. Some atheists devote much of their time and energy to attacking Design!

Personally, I see nothing wrong with design having an agenda. My point is if there is an agenda, don’t say (not you personally) there isn’t one.

Of course atheists attack design. Why? In their view it leads to God exists which is my whole point. I’m not saying it is not a specialized subject. I am not criticizing the actual theory itself. I am not suggesting it is flawed, bad science, or invalid. None of that. What I am saying is in my view, design is proposed to confirm the existence of God and to validate belief in God in that it has a logical, valid and purposeful foundation It was not proposed for any other reason which is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. My problem is saying it has nothing to do with God when it obviously has.

My friend that is so sad. If you will permit to indulge myself for a moment. I went to a Mass for victims of suicide a while ago. Suicide is such a preventable death and what disturbed me so much was the people who spoke at the homily who had lost people to suicide. They did not know why, they couldn’t explain it. They are left not knowing why their loved one took that step. I’m not a public crier. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s just not something I tend to. It embaresses me simply because of how I was brought up. Not right or wrong, just how it is and I envy people who don’t feel restricted by the same reserve. Anyway, I cried buckets at that Mass. I didn’t care. Lots of people cried and I didn’t feel judged.

But on the topic of the thread - of what benefit is a rational, purposeful etc. foundation for belief in an intelligent designer have other than a religious one to those who have lost someone to suicide?

 

[ManRay]

Ya know, they say the things we despise most in others are the things we deny about ourselves:

I invite you to review this and any number of disparaging remarks I’ve observed you make in this and other threads. As to my comment, I actually HAVE had people in other debates tell me pretty much the same thing, and honestly, I didn’t take offense to it. Your reiteration was fine until you got to the word tripe.

It argues this based on independently established logical principles, most importantly the principle that “something cannot come from nothing.” If you deny that the universe has a cause, then this is your only remaining option, and it is, I daresay, a much more absurd assertion than the existence of God.

 

[ManRay]

Irrelevant. Each kind of car was designed, unquestionably. The cars didn’t shape themselves due to environmental factors. Someone designed it.

Absolutely not irrelevant. People are a product of change in relation to sets, and variables that exist in nature. The concept of design doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The only way we know design is based on past ideas, contrasting ideas etc…etc… They are shaped and “designed” through a process of environmental factors - even if by proxy. There are thatch huts, and there are world trade centers…the word design is a construct of human thought that is borne from previous designs, evolutions, ideas, needs, and wants. THAT’S WHAT DESIGN IS!!! What is the need, the want, the anything that some god would profess? The motivation? What… WHAT WHAT WHAT??? God so much needed to share his love with a planet the size of a speck of sand on the largest beach in the world…so that we could share this love…and we may possibly end up in heaven or hell… REALLY? LIKE WE WOULD HAVE NEVER KNOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE???..WAS GOD LONELY? MAD? CONFUSED??? WHAT WHAT WHAT. What brought forth this DESIGN that is incidentally only known from what we know of the here and now…it’s ridiculous

 

[prodigalson2011]

Even if that were my argument - which it ISN’T - I would respond…yea I know…it’s absurd for me to state that the universe may have just always existed, and not absurd to say that this superhero that exists outside of the universe always existed…yea…totally dude. I’m absurd.

It would not be absurd to state that the universe may have just always existed if we didn’t have pretty conclusive evidence to the contrary.

What is absurd is to state, since we know the universe had a beginning, that the universe might have just sprung out of absolutely nothing (i.e. had no cause).

BUT YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT…CMON!!! GOD? What reference in time space, logic do you have for something that exists outside time space, and logic??
WHERE? Where is there any school of knowledge regarding this???..Ghosthunters? Paranormal researchers? Theologians??? REALLLY??? BUNK BUNK BUNK… Besides 2+2=5 are known quantities that EXIST INSIDE OUR SPACE TIME AND LOGIC…CMON!!! You’re still trapped in that junk ether…You still have to reason with the same tools that everyone else does…and it fails…miserably

What you fail to realize is that no matter how far you move the goalposts, the question must eventually be faced. No matter how many new layers of the universe we may uncover, it must eventually terminate, and when it does, the same question will be staring you in the face: what caused it all?

The Kalam cosmological argument concludes that:

a) the universe began to exist
b) even given the possibility of a multiverse, science has concluded that any series of universes must eventually terminate (i.e., must have a beginning)
b) ergo, all universes must have an external cause
c) the universe is the composite of all space, time and matter
d) ergo, the cause of the universe does not consist of or within space, time and matter.
e) the only conceivable entities that fit this description are either an unembodied, personal force (i.e. a mind) or an abstract object, such as a number.
f) abstract objects have no power of causation
g) ergo, the cause of the universe is personal, nonphysical and eternal

This is only a very rough outline.

There is difference between everything that begins to exist…and everything that exists has a cause. There could very well be some aspect of causality in relation to space, and time that we don’t understand…intellectual honesty…the difference between we don’t know, and oh - well it was this god. this christian god…We have a million books that describe his nature, and all sorts of stuff…totally…it’s totally awesome. Factual stuff man. Verifiable.

All space-time continuums (universes) must have a beginning. That is not a philosophical argument, it’s a scientific fact. Eventually, at some point in the past there is no space and time for any “aspect of causality” to act.

So again, no matter how many new causal principles we discover, there comes a point in the past where they did not exist, and you are then faced with the question: why did they begin to exist?

The question of God is not going to go away, and science is not going to solve it. Luckily, I believe there is enough philosophical, logical and historical evidence for us to reasonably draw our conclusions.

Finally, the Kalam argument, nor any other basic proof of God, makes the explicit claim that the creator it demonstrates is the Christian God. In fact, the Kalam argument was formulated by a Muslim. The arguments for the nature of God are completely separate.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Absolutely not irrelevant. People are a product of change in relation to sets, and variables that exist in nature. The concept of design doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The only way we know design is based on past ideas, contrasting ideas etc…etc…

No, the way we know design is because we are designers. We can think in the abstract. We can conceive of mathematical truths, spatial constructs, physical laws, etc. and apply those ideas to the world around us.

They are shaped and “designed” through a process of environmental factors - even if by proxy. There are thatch huts, and there are world trade centers…the word design is a construct of human thought that is borne from previous designs, evolutions, ideas, needs, and wants.

The word design is a name given to the reality of our ability to conceive and build tools, structures, etc. etc. based upon our knowledge of mathematical and physical laws. Your definition is idiosyncratic, reductionist and absurd.

Also, note the absurdity of stating that “design is a construct of human thought borne from previous designs…” Which came first, the chicken or the chicken?

Nonetheless, individual designs are influenced and inspired by different needs, ideas, etc., but they are not “borne of them.” They are borne of minds; minds that process all those different factors and INTELLIGENTLY find solutions to the problems they present. Intelligence is a necessity.

THAT’S WHAT DESIGN IS!!!

No:

de·sign
   [dih-zahyn]

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to** plan the form and structure of:** to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
   3.to intend for a definite purpose.
3. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan.
4. to assign in thought or intention; purpose.

All of the above match my definition of design; none of them match yours. You can’t rewrite language to suit your arguments.

What is the need, the want, the anything that some god would profess? The motivation? What… WHAT WHAT WHAT??? God so much needed to share his love with a planet the size of a speck of sand on the largest beach in the world…

a) God doesn’t NEED anything; he is, by definition self sufficient
b) Size is a relative concept that holds no bearing on value or meaning.

so that we could share this love…and we may possibly end up in heaven or hell…

That’s for us to decide. Hell is not some kind of eternal time-out or whipping session; it is the freely chosen rejection of God’s love. Freedom is necessary for love. Freedom implies the ability to say no. As Fr. Robert Barron so succinctly stated it, “The only people in hell are the ones who want to be there.”

This is also why Catholics believe that non-Christians, even atheists, who sincerely seek the true and good can end up in Heaven.

REALLY? LIKE WE WOULD HAVE NEVER KNOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE???..WAS GOD LONELY? MAD? CONFUSED??? WHAT WHAT WHAT. What brought forth this DESIGN that is incidentally only known from what we know of the here and now…it’s ridiculous

Ah, your motivations are showing! Your outburst here suggests that your real objections are more emotional than rational.

As much as you like to denigrate theology, I invite you, if you honestly want some substantive theistic answers, to start studying Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. The entire work is available here.

 

[ManRay]

No, the way we know design is because we are designers. We can think in the abstract. We can conceive of mathematical truths, spatial constructs, physical laws, etc. and apply those ideas to the world around us

.

All you are doing is proving my point. I don’t even have to try, and be right. Nothing you just stated differentiates us from god. We may as well be god.

The word design is a name given to the reality of our ability to conceive and build tools, structures, etc. etc. based upon our knowledge of mathematical and physical laws. Your definition is idiosyncratic, reductionist and absurd.

No - your response is absurd. Why do we design things…WHY? We can determine this. Now Why would a god design something? Why? I want you to really think about that in relation to creatively expressing needs, and wants, and then contrast that with something that is perfect in every way…and yet it designed something. Really think about that.

de·sign
   [dih-zahyn]

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to** plan the form and structure of:** to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
   3.to intend for a definite purpose.
3. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan.
4. to assign in thought or intention; purpose.

All of the above match my definition of design; none of them match yours. You can’t rewrite language to suit your arguments.

It’s like I’m having a discussion with a bag of potato chips.

1. Structure - a bridge…THAT IS A NEED
2. Fashion/Art…that is a WANT
3. PURPOSE…self explanatory
4. PLAN…once again purpose
5. Once again PURPOSE

Now once again…think of an all perfect entity, and then think about it wanting, and needing something. Do you get it? Probably not.

God doesn’t NEED anything; he is, by definition self sufficient

Well - of course…the big hand wave…You know this how? And besides if god doesn’t need anything then whence does this design idea come from?? God doesn’t want anything then why the idea…Why? Once again - think about it. Your the one that creates new meaning for words. A perfect thing would never need or want to do anything - but that is what design is.

Size is a relative concept that holds no bearing on value or meaning.

I’m not wasting my time with that one…sheesh

Ah, your motivations are showing! Your outburst here suggests that your real objections are more emotional than rational.

Your right…irrational in the sense of arguing with a block of wood I guess.

As much as you like to denigrate theology, I invite you, if you honestly want some substantive theistic answers, to start studying Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. The entire work is available here.

I’ve read it…I found it interesting, but ultimately lacking. I’m not a romantic so I don’t really get swept up with flowery prose, and creative jibberish. I realize this is very important with catholics. Catholics place a high regard on prose that obfuscates simple points. I mean seriously - you guys have books on angels that are hundreds of pages wrong…very well written, and very much full of jibberish. The average catholic though reads them, and has their little heart swept away as though god has actually given them some kind of divine lobotomy. It’s precious.

 

[prodigalson2011]

.

All you are doing is proving my point. I don’t even have to try, and be right. Nothing you just stated differentiates us from god. We may as well be god.

Ya know, that’s kinda the whole point about man being “made in the image of God.” His creation reflects his nature. That kinda thing.

No - your response is absurd. Why do we design things…WHY? We can determine this. Now Why would a god design something? Why? I want you to really think about that in relation to creatively expressing needs, and wants, and then contrast that with something that is perfect in every way…and yet it designed something. Really think about that.

I don’t see where the problem is.

It’s like I’m having a discussion with a bag of potato chips.

1. Structure - a bridge…THAT IS A NEED
2. Fashion/Art…that is a WANT
3. PURPOSE…self explanatory
4. PLAN…once again purpose
5. Once again PURPOSE

Now once again…think of an all perfect entity, and then think about it wanting, and needing something. Do you get it? Probably not.

No, I get it just fine. There is no reason why a perfect entity cannot be creative.

Well - of course…the big hand wave…You know this how? And besides if god doesn’t need anything then whence does this design idea come from?? God doesn’t want anything then why the idea…Why? Once again - think about it. Your the one that creates new meaning for words. A perfect thing would never need or want to do anything - but that is what design is.

Who said God doesn’t want anything? Why would something perfect not want to do anything? Give one logical reason that perfection precludes creativity?

I’m not wasting my time with that one…sheesh

'Cause it’s true. Sheesh. Don’t make vacuous statements and neither of us will have to waste our time with them.

Your right…irrational in the sense of arguing with a block of wood I guess.

I take your feeble insult as a tacit, if unconscious, agreement.

I’ve read it…I found it interesting, but ultimately lacking. I’m not a romantic so I don’t really get swept up with flowery prose, and creative jibberish. I realize this is very important with catholics. Catholics place a high regard on prose that obfuscates simple points. I mean seriously - you guys have books on angels that are hundreds of pages wrong…very well written, and very much full of jibberish. The average catholic though reads them, and has their little heart swept away as though god has actually given them some kind of divine lobotomy. It’s precious.

Enjoying your smug sense of superiority? Since you can’t seem to hold a mature, respectful discussion without resorting to ad hominems, I’m done with this debate. Your bitterness speaks for itself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Enjoying your smug sense of superiority? Since you can’t seem to hold a mature, respectful discussion without resorting to ad hominems, I’m done with this debate. Your bitterness speaks for itself.

Congratulations on remaining composed, articulate and dignified with all your responses to the Man[nerless]Ray yanking your chain!

 

[Bradski]

It’s like I’m having a discussion with a bag of potato chips.

Don’t worry. It won’t last. If you don’t get the plug pulled, people will just ignore you anyway. I will be.

But then again, maybe if you dialled it back a little and talked to people like you were discussing something over a beer at a BBQ you might end up having some interesting discussions. Carry on like a pork chop (as we say down here), and you’d more than likely get a smack in the mouth.

 

[tonyrey]

Since you are resorting to personal attacks I will not correspond with you any further.

1. It is an indication of lack of real argument
2. against forum rules
3. I don’'t care to debate in this fashion.

 

[tonyrey]

Congratulations on remaining composed, articulate and dignified with all your responses to the Man[nerless]Ray yanking your chain!

It’s significant that the mannerless ones believe in a purposeless universe…

 

[tonyrey]

prodigalson2011;9941167:

that begins to exist

…and everything that exists has a cause. There could very well be some aspect of causality in relation to space, and time that we don’t understand…intellectual honesty…the difference between we don’t know, and oh - well it was this god. this christian god…We have a million books that describe his nature, and all sorts of stuff…totally…it’s totally awesome. Factual stuff man. Verifiable.

Of course it’s easily verifiable that everything is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless… like eating a lump of mud, not a piece of cake!

 

[Trurl]

Since you are resorting to personal attacks I will not correspond with you any further.

1. It is an indication of lack of real argument
2. against forum rules
3. I don’'t care to debate in this fashion.

Sounds good to me. True enough I made fun of Mr. Dumbski, but that is NOT a personal attack, because such IDiots must be exposed and ridiculed.

1. the arguments have beed presented. You do not have a CSI meter, not even on the drawing board. The hypothetical prototype failed on every test. Even if there was a one, you cannot calibrate it, it would bring up false positives.
2. that is not for you to decide.
3. excellent. There was no debate at all. You could not answer any of my points.

So, to show that there are no hard feelings, I bid you goodbye. I only hope that you will keep your word, and leave me alone in the future. I have been given such false hopes in the past, and they proved to be false.

 

[ManRay]

Don’t worry. It won’t last. If you don’t get the plug pulled, people will just ignore you anyway. I will be.

But then again, maybe if you dialled it back a little and talked to people like you were discussing something over a beer at a BBQ you might end up having some interesting discussions. Carry on like a pork chop (as we say down here), and you’d more than likely get a smack in the mouth.

Au contraire - it is precisely that I presume to be having a discussion over beer, and barbecue that I feel no need to abide by some fantastical notion of manners, and elegant speak. We aren’t in an auditorium adhering to official protocols of debate. I’m not quite as sensitive it seems…my apologies to the offended. I obviously interact with a much rougher crowd.

 

[ManRay]

A want is having a desire to do something…or to possess something…or used contextually - a deficiency in something - as in a car is in want of repair.

Why would a super perfect entity ever need or desire to do or possess something? Why?

If I walk into a field on a sunny day, sit down and discover that I am in a perfect state (if even for the time being) I don’t long for anything. I don’t sit there and think…Oh this is perfect - so now I need to add something else to this perfection - maybe a coca cola… That is the whole point of the perfect state - there is no want/'desire or need for anything more. Nothing can be added or taken away…to suggest otherwise introduces some sort of arbitrary notion…