Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-24-2012, 02:14 AM
 
258 posts, read 206,800 times
Reputation: 38

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The only bamboozlement here is the use of Nature and natural AS IF they explain or encompass the inscrutable phenomenon responsible for our reality. When you can evidence WHAT the hell nature ACTUALLY IS besides an arbitrary definition created to stop using God as the referent because the early scientists were persecuted by religious autocrats . . . THEN you can call it the default. Until then God is the default because that is the only referent that encompasses the true grandeur, scope, and power of the phenomenon being referenced for the existence of our reality.
Sure. And until meteorologists know in every detail what encompasses the true grandeur, scope, and power of the phenomenon of thunder and lightning then Thor the Thundergod is the default explanation. We do understand your argument you know, it's just that it was silly a thousand years ago when the old Norse used the same argument for the existence of Thor that you use now for the existence of God.

 
Old 09-24-2012, 02:40 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,412,441 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The only bamboozlement here is the use of Nature and natural AS IF they explain or encompass the inscrutable phenomenon responsible for our reality. When you can evidence WHAT the hell nature ACTUALLY IS besides an arbitrary definition created to stop using God as the referent because the early scientists were persecuted by religious autocrats
And calling it all "god" is just the same thing in reverse, the use of a definition to try and include "god" by default in the same way you try to accuse others of using "nature" to negate "god" by default.

The reality however is we are sitting here on a planet teeming with life in a universe that dwarfs that planet in its enormity. We have many questions about the origin of that universe and life on this planet. We are working on those questions and seeking answers. Evolution Theory - which the thread is about remember - is one such hypothesis to explain a section of those questions and it has been tried - tested - evidence and by the methodologies of science "proven". And it very much does show "Design without a designer" by showing how simple processes can output results that appear designed to us - but are not.

In the interim people like yourself are making up answers - such as sentient and conscious universes - in order to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and explanations. These hypotheses however are not coming with any supporting evidence or arguments - but instead with some linguistic trickery designed to act like those hypotheses are right by default until some better one comes along.

It does not matter if you want to label it "god" or "nature" or "pudding" - simply cherry picking labels is not going to support the claims of a conscious universe - or the survival of human subjectivity and consciousness after death - or the manifestation of the universes consciousness in human form through Jesus Christ - or any of the other new age jive you tend to claim on the forums here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is NO possibility of order without a controlling design to the very processes that produce it, period.
This is one of those claims that would require a little more evidence than you simply declaring it to be so.
 
Old 09-24-2012, 11:37 AM
 
63,477 posts, read 39,759,351 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The only bamboozlement here is the use of Nature and natural AS IF they explain or encompass the inscrutable phenomenon responsible for our reality. When you can evidence WHAT the hell nature ACTUALLY IS besides an arbitrary definition created to stop using God as the referent because the early scientists were persecuted by religious autocrats . . . THEN you can call it the default. Until then God is the default because that is the only referent that encompasses the true grandeur, scope, and power of the phenomenon being referenced for the existence of our reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtieE View Post
Sure. And until meteorologists know in every detail what encompasses the true grandeur, scope, and power of the phenomenon of thunder and lightning then Thor the Thundergod is the default explanation. We do understand your argument you know, it's just that it was silly a thousand years ago when the old Norse used the same argument for the existence of Thor that you use now for the existence of God.
Sorry but that is NOT my argument. The attributes themselves . . . Creator, law giver, maintainer, controller, sustainer, and source of the design of our entire reality and how it operates . . . are what define it as God. Your silly attacks on ancient or even current BELIEFS ABOUT God are spurious. Evolution can NOT function without a design for the processes that it uses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
And calling it all "god" is just the same thing in reverse, the use of a definition to try and include "god" by default in the same way you try to accuse others of using "nature" to negate "god" by default.

The reality however is we are sitting here on a planet teeming with life in a universe that dwarfs that planet in its enormity. We have many questions about the origin of that universe and life on this planet. We are working on those questions and seeking answers. Evolution Theory - which the thread is about remember - is one such hypothesis to explain a section of those questions and it has been tried - tested - evidence and by the methodologies of science "proven". And it very much does show "Design without a designer" by showing how simple processes can output results that appear designed to us - but are not.
It has NOT shown that design can be achieved without a designer. . . it has shown how unique designs can be effected through deigned processes that folllow designed procedures over time. Evolutions failure to understand the reason for the design underlying the propagation of life is just ignorance expressed in euphemisms like random or natural or self-organizing or self-reproducing, etc. that explain nothing.
Quote:
In the interim people like yourself are making up answers - such as sentient and conscious universes - in order to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and explanations. These hypotheses however are not coming with any supporting evidence or arguments - but instead with some linguistic trickery designed to act like those hypotheses are right by default until some better one comes along.

It does not matter if you want to label it "god" or "nature" or "pudding" - simply cherry picking labels is not going to support the claims of a conscious universe - or the survival of human subjectivity and consciousness after death - or the manifestation of the universes consciousness in human form through Jesus Christ - or any of the other new age jive you tend to claim on the forums here.
These are separate issues from the one of existence and you know it . . . but they are the ones that stick in your craw so you repeatedly pretend they have anything to do with the actual existential question of our inscrutable God/Nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You have consistently and repeatedly sought to associate me with the frauds in the Creationist and Intelligent Design camps to no effect. I am neither. There is NO possibility of order without a controlling design to the very processes that produce it, period. It is only the designer that is inscrutable and must be assumed a priori. It is curious that you would defend the existence of design without a designer in the absence of ANY credible evidence that it is possible. Remember our failure or inability to evince the designer is NOT evidence of the lack of one . . . but design without a designer is nowhere in evidence . . . Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker notwithstanding. Everything proceeds from the design of your Nature itself.
This is one of those claims that would require a little more evidence than you simply declaring it to be so.
What process could you EVER use to establish a scientific method if the underlying reality did NOT have a consistently reliable and predictable design that could be co-opted into use for that very purpose?
 
Old 09-24-2012, 12:40 PM
 
258 posts, read 206,800 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Sorry but that is NOT my argument. The attributes themselves . . . Creator, law giver, maintainer, controller, sustainer, and source of the design of our entire reality and how it operates . . . are what define it as God. Your silly attacks on ancient or even current BELIEFS ABOUT God are spurious. Evolution can NOT function without a design for the processes that it uses.
You need a god as an explanation just like the old Norse invented Thor the Thundergod as an explanation for thunder and lightning. Just like everybody else in human history have invented gods because they didn't have a better explanation. Here is a list of 107 Creator Gods people have invented. We know why and how we invented and evolved the Christian God:
A History of God and we are beginning to understand the mechanisms that make us believe in gods and religions: Belief and the brain's God spot. You are doing the equivalent of trying to justify your belief that Sherlock Holmes was real while we others know perfectly well exactly how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made him up. So no creator god is needed to explain how life evolved on this planet.
 
Old 09-24-2012, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Warren, Michigan
5,298 posts, read 4,580,178 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Interesting! Well OK then: Please... Do go on! It's an astounding philosophy I will admit that! Truly delusional, but astounding to be sure!!

Well I can think of a few more; Things we try to dispose of in our culture;

Opening the door for women

Respecting the bible

Respecting other religions

Jacks

Local newspapers

All these are experiencing a type of reversed evolution. Humanity is adapting to a disposible mentality; and many are trying to dispose of our God.
 
Old 09-24-2012, 08:15 PM
 
63,477 posts, read 39,759,351 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Sorry but that is NOT my argument. The attributes themselves . . . Creator, law giver, maintainer, controller, sustainer, and source of the design of our entire reality and how it operates . . . are what define it as God. Your silly attacks on ancient or even current BELIEFS ABOUT God are spurious. Evolution can NOT function without a design for the processes that it uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtieE View Post
You need a god as an explanation just like the old Norse invented Thor the Thundergod as an explanation for thunder and lightning. Just like everybody else in human history have invented gods because they didn't have a better explanation. Here is a list of 107 Creator Gods
A History of God and we are beginning to understand the mechanisms that make us believe in gods and religions: Belief and the brain's God spot. You are doing the equivalent of trying to justify your belief that Sherlock Holmes was real while we others know perfectly well exactly how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made him up. So no creator god is needed to explain how life evolved on this planet.
I don't need any such thing . . . It just ISModerator cut: delete
. Neither God nor Nature EXPLAIN anything . . . they just ARE the inscrutable and inexplicable Source of our reality. We can discover and explain HOW they do what they do . . . but we can NOT explain either. That is why they are a priori assumptions based on preference.

Last edited by Miss Blue; 09-25-2012 at 05:23 AM.. Reason: you need to tone it down, Mystic
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:38 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,412,441 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Sorry but that is NOT my argument. The attributes themselves . . . Creator, law giver, maintainer, controller, sustainer, and source of the design of our entire reality and how it operates . . . are what define it as God.
Again this is just linguistics. You are basically trying to sell the argument "The universe was created - God happens to be defined as a creator - therefore since the definition fits there must be a god".

It does not work that way. Defining something so it just happens to fit parts of what you observe does not magically make the thing exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It has NOT shown that design can be achieved without a designer
Nor did I claim that. Try reading it again. What I said is that things like Evolution give the APPEARANCE of design without there being an actual design - or a designer. Take the Eye for example - the hobby horse of the creationist "movement". It appears "designed" to see objects. No design or designer was actually required however. Just the incremental and random changes in cells which were selected for by natural selection.

That no design exists or no designer is in evidence however does not change the fact that the illusion of design and intention created by evolution when forming something like the eye is massively powerful to the human mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What process could you EVER use to establish a scientific method if the underlying reality did NOT have a consistently reliable and predictable design that could be co-opted into use for that very purpose?
Answering a question with a question is not evidencing your claims. YOU claimed outright that "There is NO possibility of order without a controlling design" which is a positive claim and hence the burden of proof lies with you, not me.
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:00 AM
 
63,477 posts, read 39,759,351 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Again this is just linguistics. You are basically trying to sell the argument "The universe was created - God happens to be defined as a creator - therefore since the definition fits there must be a god".
It does not work that way. Defining something so it just happens to fit parts of what you observe does not magically make the thing exist.
Yet that is what you do with "Nature." You just bridle at the use of the name God for the same thing.
Quote:
Nor did I claim that. Try reading it again. What I said is that things like Evolution give the APPEARANCE of design without there being an actual design - or a designer. Take the Eye for example - the hobby horse of the creationist "movement". It appears "designed" to see objects. No design or designer was actually required however. Just the incremental and random changes in cells which were selected for by natural selection.
That no design exists or no designer is in evidence however does not change the fact that the illusion of design and intention created by evolution when forming something like the eye is massively powerful to the human mind.
You will not get me to accept your use of design to include the designer, monumentus. A design exists or it doesn't . . . there is no appearance or illusion of one . . . and there is plenty of design to our reality. Your conflation of intelligence to it is an attempt to associate it with the fraudulent Intelligent Design and Creationist movements. It will not work.
Quote:
Answering a question with a question is not evidencing your claims. YOU claimed outright that "There is NO possibility of order without a controlling design" which is a positive claim and hence the burden of proof lies with you, not me.
Just remove the question mark and it becomes a statement that evidences my assertion. The scientific method co-opts the underlying consistently reliable and predictable design of our reality to achieve the discoveries and understanding of our reality that Einstein found so remarkable. To paraphrase him . . . "The true wonder is that we can understand the universe at all."
 
Old 09-26-2012, 08:20 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,412,441 times
Reputation: 4324
I have said the opposite many times so you are just putting words in my mouth now.

As I keep saying I do not care what you call it. Universe, Nature, God, cookie dough. More power to you. So when you say I "bridle" at the use of the label "god" you are simply outright making up falsehoods.

What IS in issue however is the things you try to assign after that definition. The things you are using that label to establish as some kind of mystical default for yourself. You can call it "god" is doing so makes you feel good - but doing so does not suddenly mean the universe is sentient, conscious, has a design for us, planned anything, that human consciousness survives the death of the body - or any of the other stuff you pile in there when you think no one will notice.

You are the one - not me - trying to establish that a design exists. If you think one does then evidence it. All I am saying is that evolution gives the impression that a design/designer is behind it when in fact there is no evidence to think any such thing. The eye, for example, may appear designed by a designer. That in no way means it actually was and we now understand how such an illusion can form without any design, designer, or intention behind it at all.
 
Old 09-26-2012, 08:44 AM
 
63,477 posts, read 39,759,351 times
Reputation: 7796
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
What IS in issue however is the things you try to assign after that definition. The things you are using that label to establish as some kind of mystical default for yourself. You can call it "god" is doing so makes you feel good - but doing so does not suddenly mean the universe is sentient, conscious, has a design for us, planned anything, that human consciousness survives the death of the body - or any of the other stuff you pile in there when you think no one will notice.
I pile nothing in when no one notices. I specifically delineate the line of BELIEFS ABOUT God from the undeniable scientific features of God that exist. You do NOT. You focus ONLY on the BELIEFS ABOUT God that stick in your craw as listed above. You can rail all you want about BELIEFS . . . but you can NOT deny or make the absurd claim that there is no evidence whatsoever for God just because you do not accept certain BELIEFS ABOUT God. There is plenty of evidence sans the BELIEFS and you know it but just won't accept them without including the BELIEFS ABOUT God you cannot accept. BELIEFS do NOT define existence . . . reality does.
Quote:
You are the one - not me - trying to establish that a design exists. If you think one does then evidence it. All I am saying is that evolution gives the impression that a design/designer is behind it when in fact there is no evidence to think any such thing. The eye, for example, may appear designed by a designer. That in no way means it actually was and we now understand how such an illusion can form without any design, designer, or intention behind it at all.
I have told you several times now that I will NOT allow you to include the designer in the existence of design. Design exists. You can debate what or who the designer is . . .. but NOT the existence of the design. To refresh your memory from the things you always leave out of my posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You will not get me to accept your use of design to include the designer, monumentus. A design exists or it doesn't . . . there is no appearance or illusion of one . . . and there is plenty of design to our reality. Your conflation of intelligence to it is an attempt to associate it with the fraudulent Intelligent Design and Creationist movements. It will not work.Just remove the question mark and it becomes a statement that evidences my assertion. The scientific method co-opts the underlying consistently reliable and predictable design of our reality to achieve the discoveries and understanding of our reality that Einstein found so remarkable. To paraphrase him . . . "The true wonder is that we can understand the universe at all."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top