B
buffalo
Guest
Catholicism was the main patron of science. It is historical and you may be the first to not acknowledge it.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
I did not say that God was in time; I said that He was in the “All That Exists” universe. Only the non-existent is outside that universe.
R
rossum
Guest
So, you are saying that God does not exist. He is not included in the set: {All That Exists}.
There are a lot of philosophical sets that include God: {Things that are alive}, {Things that can create}, {Things that have knowledge}, {Things that live longer than 500 years}. Any attribute given to God puts Him in the appropriate set. Since God exists, then He is in the All That Exists universe.
R
rossum
Guest
So, we agree that the basic ID premise is incorrect. At the very least it needs a more accurate formulation. The problem being finding an accurate formulation that can be taught in American public schools.
R
rossum
Guest
The watch was designed, but science only asserts that some things were designed. ID asserts that a far wider range of things were designed. Science does not have an infinite regress of designers. ID does have an infinite regress, because of its wider category of designed things.
ID says that something as complex as intelligence must be designed. Science says that intelligence may be designed and may not be. A computer AI is designed, both agree. Chimpanzee intelligence is not designed according to science, but is designed according to ID.
O
o_mlly
Guest
My post was not to you but to one who would hijack your thread.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The thing with all of these qualifiers is that we have to be careful, because our only frame of reference for these things is by comparison to finite creature, and God transcends all such things. There is are ways in which we do bear some likeness, but we have to be aware of our own limitations in defining/conceiving such boxes or sets.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Again… the misrendering of the claim.
B
buffalo
Guest
No we do not. You are not or unwilling to understanding transcendence. God designed a frame of reference (that He is outside of) that is that shows signatures of this design we detect.
R
rossum
Guest
That is good philosophy, but it is not what ID says. ID asserts that all specified complexity requires design. ID’s philosophical freedom is restricted by its need to stay within the separation of Church and State so it can be taught in public schools. Thus is has to avoid the more theological arguments.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I don’t think all ID proponents agree.
If something is not complicated (chimpanzee intelligence) then ID is not inferred.
N
niceatheist
Guest
You’re right. The claim is even vaguer than that. As it was once described to me, ID basically says “somehow something somewhere is wrong with Evolution.”
Let’s not confuse ID, as people like Michael Behe claim, from theistic evolution. The former makes no useful claim, and the very few times IC and related claims have been made, they have been demonstrated to have no utility. The latter is the acceptance of methodological naturalism (science) while asserting that God may guide processes. The latter makes no claims about how or when that might happen, and does not pretend to be a scientific claim. ID on the other hand is fundamentally dishonesty, a carefully crafted formulation meant to sneak Creationism back into American classrooms.
Let’s not confuse ID, as people like Michael Behe claim, from theistic evolution. The former makes no useful claim, and the very few times IC and related claims have been made, they have been demonstrated to have no utility. The latter is the acceptance of methodological naturalism (science) while asserting that God may guide processes. The latter makes no claims about how or when that might happen, and does not pretend to be a scientific claim. ID on the other hand is fundamentally dishonesty, a carefully crafted formulation meant to sneak Creationism back into American classrooms.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is observed, repeatedly, in the world. The world the God made. God wrote a book and God made a world. He even tells you to use His world to help interpret His book: “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” - Psalm 85:11. You would do well to follow the Bible’s advice in this.
The Catholic Church has learned this lesson, why haven’t you?
R
rossum
Guest
So, we have to be careful when we read the Bible, which contains many of those same qualifiers. If God cannot be described in words, and the Bible consists of words, then…
R
rossum
Guest
There is no physical part of a human that is not also present in a chimpanzee. The proportions are different, but all parts are present. There is no big evolutionary barrier between the two species.
In a working memory intelligence test, chimps beat humans. See Chimp vs Human: Memory Test.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Yes, we do have to be careful when we read the Bible, which is why we have the Church as a guiding and interpretive authority. You’re talking to a Catholic, I’ve no issue with that.Wesrock:
So, we have to be careful when we read the Bible, which contains many of those same qualifiers. If God cannot be described in words, and the Bible consists of words, then…
B
buffalo
Guest
No it doesn’t. Functional complex specified information.
B
buffalo
Guest
Common design
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. I’m saying that the set “All that exists” isn’t terribly helpful in this discussion, because “all that is created” and “all that is uncreated” is so different in their characteristics that the “exists” abstraction doesn’t provide any benefit in any discussion or argument. In fact, I think, it hinders the discussion, because the two groups are so different from each other.
I’m surprised by this assertion. I was thinking that you were sufficiently well-versed in philosophy that you knew that God does not have attributes, per se (since it implies that God is composite, not simple).
So, no… God doesn’t have attributes in the way that composite beings have attributes, such that we can have sets based on attributes that help us understand the various elements in the sets.
Umm…If you want to address me directly – since you responded to rossum’s response to me – you know you can do so, right? And, no… I’m not trying to hijack the thread.
M
mhmtas63
Guest
- Status