The Blind Goddess!

[tonyrey]

The only logical alternative to Design is the Absence of Design which implies that existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. There are no half-measures when it comes to the nature of reality. It is either rational or non-rational. There can be an element of Chance within the framework of Design but there cannot be an element of Design without a framework. Camus and Sartre were clear-sighted enough to realise a Godless universe is absurd and everything in it is absurd. Yet it is impossible to live without goals. Even Camus and Sartre were inconsistent in their decision to be humanists. Why single out one’s own species as more important and significant than any other? Why deny the great apes the same rights as we have? It is simply unreasonable favouritism in favour of a group to which one happens to belong if we just happen to exist. “happen” is the key word in the materialist’s scheme of things: everything without exception is the product of fortuitous events - and this where the Blind Goddess comes in.

The ultimate Cause of everything is supposed to be Chance in the sense of “the absence of intention or cause”. There is also supposed to be no **reason **for the origin of the universe or life on this planet or elsewhere. That is why Richard Dawkins substituted “The Blind Clockmaker” for God in his explanation of biological development and the emergence of homo sapiens. What he has not explained - and cannot explain - is how his power of reason is derived from unreasoning processes. Do you think it is possible? If so how has it occurred?

 

[Bahman]

The only logical alternative to Design is the Absence of Design which implies that existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. There are no half-measures when it comes to the nature of reality. It is either rational or non-rational.

Rationality doesn’t have any meaning without irrationality. Existence could be purposeful but meaningless since earlier is dealing with thought whereas the later is dealing with feeling, and vice versa. Hence absence or presence of design has nothing to do with meaning but purpose.

There can be an element of Chance within the framework of Design but there cannot be an element of Design without a framework.

There is nothing like the chance. Any change is related to an awareness which take place in consciousness. What we call chance is the result of our ignorance to awareness.

Camus and Sartre were clear-sighted enough to realise a Godless universe is absurd and everything in it is absurd.

And how the existence of God can give a meaning if there is no feeling?

Yet it is impossible to live without goals.

No, it is impossible to live without feeling. How you could do something which is purposeful yet you hate?

Even Camus and Sartre were inconsistent in their decision to be humanists.

No, if humanists deals with meaning and it does so.

Why single out one’s own species as more important and significant than any other? Why deny the great apes the same rights as we have? It is simply unreasonable favouritism in favour of a group to which one happens to belong if we just happen to exist. “happen” is the key word in the materialist’s scheme of things: everything without exception is the product of fortuitous events - and this where the Blind Goddess comes in.

What I conclude from here is that Christian God is blind since it prefer human to animal.
Why animal should suffer and have not eternal life in heaven in presence of God?

The ultimate Cause of everything is supposed to be Chance in the sense of “the absence of intention or cause”. There is also supposed to be no **reason **for the origin of the universe or life on this planet or elsewhere.

Are you looking for meaning or reason? You cannot have all goodies together since you either follow your feeling or thought.

That is why Richard Dawkins substituted “The Blind Clockmaker” for God in his explanation of biological development and the emergence of homo sapiens. What he has not explained - and cannot explain - is how his power of reason is derived from unreasoning processes. Do you think it is possible? If so how has it occurred?

No change is possible without consciousness and that is consciousness that grant you the power of reasoning and feeling.

 

[tonyrey]

Rationality doesn’t have any meaning without irrationality. Existence could be purposeful but meaningless since earlier is dealing with thought whereas the later is dealing with feeling, and vice versa. Hence absence or presence of design has nothing to do with meaning but purpose.

Meaning and purpose are inseparable. If something is purposeless it is meaningless.
Feelings are not purposeless or meaningless because they are an intrinsic element of life.

There is nothing like the chance. Any change is related to an awareness which take place in consciousness. What we call chance is the result of our ignorance to awareness.

Chance implies that events occur for no reason as when a tile falls from the roof and kills a person who happens to be standing exactly where it falls. It is usually a coincidence that is not intended or planned unless some one has deliberately loosened the tile.

And how the existence of God can give a meaning if there is no feeling?

It cannot. Love is a rational emotion when we desire the welfare of a person or animal.

No, it is impossible to live without feeling. How you could do something which is purposeful yet you hate?

Jesus is an example. He allowed Himself to be crucified because He knew it would liberate us from evil.

No, if humanists deals with meaning and it does so.

Humanism is meaningful but in a Godless universe it is arbitrary. If we are not all children of the same Father there is no reason to regard one another as brothers and sisters.

What I conclude from here is that Christian God is blind since it prefer human to animal.

Would you put the life of an animal before the life of a person?

Why animal should suffer and have not eternal life in heaven in presence of God?

There is no reason to believe all animals are excluded from heaven…

Are you looking for meaning or reason? You cannot have all goodies together since you either follow your feeling or thought.

A false dilemma, as I have already pointed out.

No change is possible without consciousness and that is consciousness that grant you the power of reasoning and feeling.

Many things, such as the weather, change even though they are not conscious but I agree that we cannot reason if we are not conscious - although we have feelings when we are dreaming.

 

[tonyrey]

In practice no one behaves as if Chance dominates life. We are essentially purposeful beings who search for happiness and - if we are reasonable - try to make others happy. It is foolish to be negative and think the misery of the minority outweighs the happiness of the majority. Most of the suffering on this planet is unnecessary because it is caused by human folly, ignorance and injustice. It is a minority who are afflicted by disease, disasters and deformities due to natural causes. That is not a reason to minimise their suffering but to see it in its true perspective - as Jesus did. Like Him we should appreciate what we have and do what we can to help those who are less fortunate.

On that positive note I wish everyone a Happy New Year

 

[rossum]

The only logical alternative to Design is the Absence of Design

I disagree. There are four alternatives:

• Design

• Not-design

• Both design and not-design (think of a Jackson Pollock painting).

• None of the above (we may have incomplete knowledge).

which implies that existence is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

No. Purpose is is not an intrinsic property, but is externally added to the entity. The purpose of a hammer, for the shopkeeper, is to sell to make a profit. The purpose of a hammer, for the owner, is to drive in nails. It is the same hammer, but two different people have imposed two different purposes on it. The purpose of the original designer of the hammer may have been different again: to make a nice present for his father. The hammer is the same; the purposes change, and do not always match the purpose of the designer.

If we wish to add out own purpose to reality, then we are free to do so.

There are no half-measures when it comes to the nature of reality. It is either rational or non-rational.

Obviously incorrect, as you tell us yourself in your next sentence:

There can be an element of Chance within the framework of Design

Which is my third option above, and refutes your previous two sentences. “There can be no half-measures, except when there are half-measures.” You need to think this through more carefully.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

I disagree. There are four alternatives:

• Design

• Not-design

• Both design and not-design (think of a Jackson Pollock painting).

• None of the above (we may have incomplete knowledge).

k this through more carefully.

rossum

there are only two alternatives: design, and not -design. You can not have both at the same time , if you have design, you do not have not -design, and if you have not-design you can not have design. To admit the existence of one is to deny the existence of the other and vs.
We can have not-design, and we can have design, but not at the same time, you contradicted yourself with your wrong reasoning.

 

[rossum]

there are only two alternatives: design, and not -design.

There are only two alternatives: black and not-black. Therefore chessboards cannot exist.

A Jackson Pollock painting is a mix of design, “I will dribble red paint near the top left corner,” and chance, the exact shape taken by those dribbles of red paint.

You can not have both at the same time

Yes you can. Your analysis is overly simplistic for the real world.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

There are only two alternatives: black and not-black. Therefore chessboards cannot exist.

Answer:
You made a statement about two alternatives: black and not black. From this statement you draw the conclusion that chessboards can not exist. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
We were talking about design, a chess board is designed to be a competing game, and it can be green and yellow, what does color have to do with the design, purpose and intent of the designer. TonyRey has always made clear that the topic was about purpose, not color HOw does chess-boards not existing relate to color, are you just making up a non-related truth . and an irrational one to avoid giving credence to the truth? You can in your mind make up subjective and imagined truth( which is no truth at all because it is relative to your mind, and not to objective reality) I can say black is a color, black is the absence of light, black could represent something existing, and non-black as something not existing. In order to dialogue we have to come to an agreement on the use of our words and meaning and be consistent in their use. Otherwise all you have to do is dismiss the argument with an irrational statement and leave it unsettled which is disingenuous
There is another consideration: simplicity can shine by it’s own light and it can blind like new fallen snow.(it’s called a “white-out”) which is a non-black-out

A Jackson Pollock painting is a mix of design, “I will dribble red paint near the top left corner,” and chance, the exact shape taken by those dribbles of red paint.

Answer: What is the purpose of a mixed design, to produce “abstract art”? What effect is he trying to get, etc, etc., what is his intent? He wouldn’t have to chance anything if he knew exactly what to do to get the exact shape (ignorance)

Yes you can. Your analysis is overly simplistic for the real world.

rossum

Answer: Show me, so far you haven’t, and I think your answers come from an imaginary world you confuse with the real world. The concepts used here concerning purpose and design are used in the meta-physical sense not in the particular sense, in the ultimate sense. But you do not ascribe to any concepts dealing with the Ultimate, so can you ever attain certainty?

 

[rossum]

Please learn to use the quote system. By not using it you make it more difficult to reply to your points.

Answer:
You made a statement about two alternatives: black and not black. From this statement you draw the conclusion that chessboards can not exist. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Is a chessboard black or not-black? You deny the possibility of answering “both”.

We were talking about design

I was talking about your simplistic logic. You only allowed X and not-X; you did not allow for any other possibilities. That might work for symbolic logic or mathematics. It is insufficient to deal with the real world. The real world is not black and white – it contains many shades of grey.

Answer: Show me, so far you haven’t, and I think your answers come from an imaginary world you confuse with the real world.

Is a Jackson Pollock painting a mixture of design and chance? Yes or no?

Is a Jackson Pollock painting real or imaginary? Yes or no?

The concepts used here concerning purpose and design are used in the meta-physical sense not in the particular sense, in the ultimate sense. But you do not ascribe to any concepts dealing with the Ultimate, so can you ever attain certainty?

I do not deal with any ultimate concepts because I have no ultimate source to rely on. Do you think that human languages are ultimate? Do you have any alleged source of ultimate knowledge that is not written in a non-ultimate human language?

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

Please learn to use the quote system. By not using it you make it more difficult to reply to your points

answer:
I am sorry that I am not adept at using the quote system and it would make it easier to understand, so I do the best I can. You seem to understand what I state, and so do others. So I beg your patience with me…

Is a chessboard black or not-black? You deny the possibility of answering “both”.

answer: According to my experience a chessboard is black , and several other colors. But for the sake of argument lets say it is black. If it is black in can not be non-black at the same time, for non-black is the absence of black. You have already qualified your statement when you say a chessboard is black, that leaves no other possibilities, it can’t be any other color. If it is non-black then it is possible to be some other color except black. You haven’t answered my question "What has this to do with the chessboard non-existence?

I was talking about your simplistic logic. You only allowed X and not-X; you did not allow for any other possibilities. That might work for symbolic logic or mathematics. It is insufficient to deal with the real world. The real world is not black and white – it contains many shades of grey.

answer: The original argument concerned design and not -design, which leaves no possibilities, you either have design or not-design, the statement is qualified
either design exists, or it doesn’t How would you determine shades of color if you didn’t have the color that you derived the shade from, because the color exists. Real world is that way. There are ultimate truths on the natural level because they exist. There is also the Ultimate Truth which give our knowledge gained from Metaphysics accuracy and validity.

Is a Jackson Pollock painting a mixture of design and chance? Yes or no?

answer: According t o your interpretation you qualified your statements by calling it a painting which implies the painter’s purpose and creation and he employs chance so from the statements answer is yes.

Is a Jackson Pollock painting real or imaginary? Yes or no?

answer: Taking you at your word it is real, it IS a painting. the subject matter of the painting may be strictly imaginary, a combination of imagination and reality, or a representation of reality It is not a statue, or photograph, etc. you made a qualification.

I do not deal with any ultimate concepts because I have no ultimate source to rely on. Do you think that human languages are ultimate? Do you have any alleged source of ultimate knowledge that is not written in a non-ultimate human language?

rossum

Answer:
If you don’t then you couldn’t qualify your statements because then you couldn’t be sure of anything. You apparently believe in natural truth concerning this world, you just don’t believe in Meta-physics and Divine Revelation. Meta-physics you can acquire, Divine Revelation is a “supernatural gift” given freely to those who are humble enough to ask for it.

 

[rossum]

I am sorry that I am not adept at using the quote system and it would make it easier to understand, so I do the best I can. You seem to understand what I state, and so do others. So I beg your patience with me.

You need to add extra "[noparse]

…

[/noparse]" pairs by hand to enclose the words you are replying to. The automated quote system will only give you the first and last. You need to add the intermediate pairs yourself.

According to my experience a chessboard is black , and several other colors. But for the sake of argument lets say it is black.

No, it is not black. A chessboard has non-black squares. It cannot be black if part of it is not-black. You are imposing the law of the excluded middle, so you deny the possibility of the existence of a chessboard. The fact that chessboards do exist show that you are applying the logic correctly. A chessboard is both black (the black squares) and not-black (the white squares). You need to reconsider your logic as it applies to the real world.

The original argument concerned design and not -design, which leaves no possibilities, you either have design or not-design, the statement is qualified either design exists, or it doesn’t

So, you continue to deny the possibility of either chessboard or of a Jackson Pollock painting. Your logic is not applicable to the real world. The real world contains mixtures of black and not-black. It contains mixtures of design and not-design. If you deny the possibility of not-design, then you are making your designer responsible for each and every disease, cancer, mutation etc we see in the real world. If there is no not-design, then every cancer was personally designed by the designer.

If you don’t then you couldn’t qualify your statements because then you couldn’t be sure of anything. You apparently believe in natural truth concerning this world, you just don’t believe in Meta-physics and Divine Revelation. Meta-physics you can acquire, Divine Revelation is a “supernatural gift” given freely to those who are humble enough to ask for it.

Look at the top right of my posts; I am Buddhist, not Christian. Can I be ultimately sure of anything? No I cannot because I do not know everything there is to know. All things that I know I can only know provisionally, not ultimately. Because I do not know everything, then I may learn something new which changes my previous provisional acceptance.

Is “1 + 1 = 10” correct? Now add the new information, “in binary”. What was false in the assumed base 10 is correct in the stated base 2. All knowledge is provisional because we may later learn something relevant that we do not know now.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

Answer:
If you don’t then you couldn’t qualify your statements because then you couldn’t be sure of anything. You apparently believe in natural truth concerning this world, you just don’t believe in Meta-physics and Divine Revelation. Meta-physics you can acquire, Divine Revelation is a “supernatural gift” given freely to those who are humble enough to ask for it.

How you could be free if everything is designed to the last digit.

 

[ynotzap]

You need to add extra “[noparse][/noparse]” pairs by hand to enclose the words you are replying to. The automated quote system will only give you the first and last. You need to add the intermediate pairs yourself.

No, it is not black. A chessboard has non-black squares. It cannot be black if part of it is not-black. You are imposing the law of the excluded middle, so you deny the possibility of the existence of a chessboard. The fact that chessboards do exist show that you are applying the logic correctly. A chessboard is both black (the black squares) and not-black (the white squares). You need to reconsider your logic as it applies to the real world.

So, you continue to deny the possibility of either chessboard or of a Jackson Pollock painting. Your logic is not applicable to the real world. The real world contains mixtures of black and not-black. It contains mixtures of design and not-design. If you deny the possibility of not-design, then you are making your designer responsible for each and every disease, cancer, mutation etc we see in the real world. If there is no not-design, then every cancer was personally designed by the designer.

Look at the top right of my posts; I am Buddhist, not Christian. Can I be ultimately sure of anything? No I cannot because I do not know everything there is to know. All things that I know I can only know provisionally, not ultimately. Because I do not know everything, then I may learn something new which changes my previous provisional acceptance.

Is “1 + 1 = 10” correct? Now add the new information, “in binary”. What was false in the assumed base 10 is correct in the stated base 2. All knowledge is provisional because we may later learn something relevant that we do not know now.

rossum

Thank you for your help, I still need to interpret all the moves I must make to implement your info, difficulty comes with old-age, and unfamiliarity with computers.

What has existence got to do with color, we are talking about purpose and intent (design)
You introduced color into the problem of design, and not design. Then you introduced shades of color referring the reality, never addressing the existence of color itself, you diverted away from the basic problem of “design and not-design” But in any case, you must know what is and what is not to have certainty in judgement. I will try to demonstrate this truth in the following, using your own words:

Quote rossum: " I am a Buddhist, not a Christian, can I be ultimately be sure of anything," If you are not ultimately sure you are a Buddhist, then why say you are? You seem to be sure of all the other things you have asserted, knowledge of painting, and artist, logic, chessboard etc,

Quote: " all the things I know, I can only know provisionally, not ultimately, because I do not know everything," in other words you are saying that unless you become Omniscient you can never be sure, and that’s impossible so it follows you can never be sure of anything, no matter how much knowledge you attain, what is knowledge if it isn’t truth If it isn’t truth, then it’s a non-truth, sometimes called a lie, or non-existing. It appears to me that “you are sure that you can’t be sure” Mainly skeptic??

The fact IS that you can be sure, even if you are not omniscient, all knowing. Truth doesn’t change, if it is truth it remains truth, truth is that which IS Truth can not remain relative depending on our knowledge, our knowledge depends on the truth, it is or isn’t. As Shakespeare would say "To be, or not to be is the question…

I rest my case with my post #6, there are only two alternatives, design or not-design, all the other arguments haven’t altered this truth.

 

[rossum]

What has existence got to do with color, we are talking about purpose and intent (design)

I am talking about logic and the law of the excluded middle. You are applying the law too rigidly to inappropriate targets.

Quote rossum: " I am a Buddhist, not a Christian, can I be ultimately be sure of anything," If you are not ultimately sure you are a Buddhist, then why say you are? You seem to be sure of all the other things you have asserted, knowledge of painting, and artist, logic, chessboard etc,

I was raised Christian. Then I became atheist, then I became Buddhist. I am only too aware that it is possible that I can change religion, and they my current religion may not be permanent. "“I am Buddhist” is in the present tense. It was not true in the past, and it may not be true in the future. It is not an absolute truth, but a contingent truth, dependent on time.

Quote: " all the things I know, I can only know provisionally, not ultimately, because I do not know everything," in other words you are saying that unless you become Omniscient you can never be sure, and that’s impossible

Correct. Perfect knowledge requires omniscience. I am not omniscient, so I do not have perfect knowledge. I have enough contingent knowledge to function in real life. I do not know the exact exchange rate for all past, present and future times. I do not need to. All I need is the present exchange rate, as advertised at the airport, when I change my money. I have enough contingent knowledge to complete the transaction.

so it follows you can never be sure of anything,

I can be contingently sure; I cannot be ultimately sure. Since contingent truth is all that I have access to, then that is what I have to work with.

Truth doesn’t change, if it is truth it remains truth, truth is that which IS

Here is a statement: “Followers of the Judaeo-Christian God are forbidden to eat shellfish.” Is that statement unchangingly true? Or perhaps that statement was true at one time, but it has changed and is now no longer true. It would appear that truth can change. This is an example of something that was true in the Old Testament being changed by new information presented in the New Testament. The Old Testament was incomplete, and so what was true then was no longer true after new information was added. New knowledge impacted on what was true.

I rest my case with my post #6, there are only two alternatives, design or not-design, all the other arguments haven’t altered this truth.

I disagree. There is still the alternative of a mixture of part designed and part not-designed in a compound entity.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

Is it true that a thing can be, and not be at the same time? Is that a contingent truth? Existing and not existing at the same time? How do you find error in logic?

Is it true that by admitting one is to eliminate the other, and by admitting the other is to eliminate the one?

Is it true that you were born? Need to eat and breath to live? Is this contingent truth? Can you grow one strand of hair by willing it? Is death a contingent truth? ( I want to say taxes too…) Do you really have to be omniscient to know what is true, and not true, whether it be contingent or not. If that be the case we are all in trouble, the blind goddess. Because I have made my self god by saying what is and what isn’t, and I know I am right, when I really don’t because I’m not sure, I am not omniscient. Your motto makes a definite statement, it sound like you are sure of yourself but then you can’t be sure because you are not omniscient.and subject to change with advanced knowledge, and that’s a good thing.

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree. There are four alternatives:• Design

• Not-design

• Both design and not-design (think of a Jackson Pollock painting).

• None of the above (we may have incomplete knowledge).

I have pointed out that there can be an element of Chance **within **the framework of Design but there cannot be an element of Design without a framework. The analagy is unsound because a Jackson Pollock painting is static and doesn’t contain living, purposeful beings.

No. Purpose is is not an intrinsic property, but is externally added to the entity. The purpose of a hammer, for the shopkeeper, is to sell to make a profit. The purpose of a hammer, for the owner, is to drive in nails. It is the same hammer, but two different people have imposed two different purposes on it. The purpose of the original designer of the hammer may have been different again: to make a nice present for his father. The hammer is the same; the purposes change, and do not always match the purpose of the designer.

The purpose of the designer is not extrinsic!

If we wish to add our own purpose to reality, then we are free to do so.

Only within certain limits. The very fact that we can do so is evidence that there is intrinsic Design!

Obviously incorrect, as you tell us yourself in your next sentence:

Not at all. The element of Chance within the framework of Design does not alter the fundamentally rational nature of the universe. Science wouldn’t exist if the universe were fundamentally disorderly and unpredictable.

 

[tonyrey]

there are only two alternatives: design, and not -design. You can not have both at the same time , if you have design, you do not have not -design, and if you have not-design you can not have design. To admit the existence of one is to deny the existence of the other and vs.
We can have not-design, and we can have design, but not at the same time, you contradicted yourself with your wrong reasoning.

In other words the ultimate nature of the universe as a whole cannot be both planned and not planned! Some elements may be left to chance by the designer but even they are part of the design!

 

[tonyrey]

I am talking about logic and the law of the excluded middle. You are applying the law too rigidly to inappropriate targets.

I was raised Christian. Then I became atheist, then I became Buddhist. I am only too aware that it is possible that I can change religion, and they my current religion may not be permanent. "“I am Buddhist” is in the present tense. It was not true in the past, and it may not be true in the future. It is not an absolute truth, but a contingent truth, dependent on time.

Correct. Perfect knowledge requires omniscience. I am not omniscient, so I do not have perfect knowledge. I have enough contingent knowledge to function in real life. I do not know the exact exchange rate for all past, present and future times. I do not need to. All I need is the present exchange rate, as advertised at the airport, when I change my money. I have enough contingent knowledge to complete the transaction.

I can be contingently sure; I cannot be ultimately sure. Since contingent truth is all that I have access to, then that is what I have to work with.

Here is a statement: “Followers of the Judaeo-Christian God are forbidden to eat shellfish.” Is that statement unchangingly true? Or perhaps that statement was true at one time, but it has changed and is now no longer true. It would appear that truth can change. This is an example of something that was true in the Old Testament being changed by new information presented in the New Testament. The Old Testament was incomplete, and so what was true then was no longer true after new information was added. New knowledge impacted on what was true.

I disagree. There is still the alternative of a mixture of part designed and part not-designed in a compound entity.

rossum

The designer is free to choose whatever proportion of non-design he or she wishes but that fact does not eliminate the primacy of design. The element of rationality cannot be eliminated altogether. Otherwise purposeful activity would be derived from purposeless activity - which is absurd because purpose implies insight and foresight.

 

[tonyrey]

How you could be free if everything is designed to the last digit.

I have pointed out that design need not entail design to the last digit.

 

[rossum]

Is it true that a thing can be, and not be at the same time?

Does the Islamic State exist or not exist? Some claim that it exists, others claim that it does not. Some claim that the Confederacy still lives, others claim that it does not.

rossum