What about some idea of what a “design inference” might entail?
Some clues as to how the “designer” might operate in reality?
Ask Elizabeth.Mung
July 24, 2013
July
07
Jul
24
24
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
If there are any actual developments in ID, I shall be pleased to learn about them.
Unfortunately you have proven to be incapable of learning. But do run away- it is all you have.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
...you are doomed...
Well, you're probably right. I think I'll follow Lizzie's lead and give UD a rest for a while. If there are any actual developments in ID, I shall be pleased to learn about them.
TSZ would be a handy place to pass on any news.Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
What about some idea of what a “design inference” might entail?
Well, for one it changes the whole game. Anyone who has conducted an investigation knows that saying something was designed means a change to the investigation. Archaeologists and not geologists are better equipped to study Stonehenge.
Some clues as to how the “designer” might operate in reality?
ID is about the DESIGN, Alan. How comes after.
Or the holy grail: an ID hypothesis that made testable predictions?
Been there, done that. And all you and your ilk can say is "That ain't good enough" all the while refusing to ante- up so we can all see what you will accept.
IOW Alan, your position doesn't have any testable hypotheses with testable predictions.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
...you should permit yourselves to be, at least, instructed in elementary good sense by the id folk here.
That would be interesting.
What about some idea of what a "design inference" might entail?
Some clues as to how the "designer" might operate in reality?
Or the holy grail: an ID hypothesis that made testable predictions?Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Earth to Alan Fox:
Living organisms are not the only thing that can be modified and have that modification passed along. That means that you can start with one religion and get many from that via descent with modification.
BTW I cannot reject what doesn't exist and seeing that no one can reference a theory of evolution it is obvious that it doesn't exist.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Can a trinitarian please tell me what 1 in the 1+1+1 stands for? and what the 1 after the equal sign stands for...they are clearly different. According to KF's logic, a family of three is a trinity. In which case JW believes in the trinity, just that Jesus is not the Almighty God.ForJah
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
You arrive here with minds confused by the adoption, not of the 'perennial philosophy', but of a chaotic, atomizing filter, shredding and muddling your 'thoughts'; you are doomed to espousing a farrago of piffle as your starting point, and an ill-conceived spirit of truculence, when you should permit yourselves to be, at least, instructed in elementary good sense by the id folk here.Axel
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
'The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons. But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.'
Spoken like the duffer of an atheist you are, Reynard. The common purpose of religions, at least the mainstream ones, is not primarily to establish the proximate source and mechanism of creation, but to establish its ultimate teleology as divine, and enable human beings to obtain a unitive knowledge of the Creator, by observing certain basic spiritual precepts, which Aldous Huxley has labelled, the 'perennial philosophy'.
By doing this, man can become attuned to things spiritual, this unitive knowledge, which underpin this world, now clearly seen to have been created with man and this vocation in view.
The fact that the greatest scientists in the history of the planet, the great paradigm-changers, from Galileo to the giants of the 20th century, were all at the very least, deists and arch-believers in ID (all educated in a Judaeo-Christian culture), would, from God's perspective, be only right and proper, but of relatively little significance, in comparison to their adoption of the 'perennial philosophy' - and ultimately, whether in this life or the next, to a knowledge of Himself in Christ.Axel
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
@ mods:
I am often getting a DNS resolution error. That and the odd typos with missed letters and spaces seem to suggest the site is getting slow. Hard to believe it's traffic overload!Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Is that.Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
It still applies.
In what way? What does the fact that societies everywhere come up with many different religious and creation myths have to do with a theory of evolution that I thought you rejected. Or that only on odd days of the week?Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
‘Descent with modification’ is a phrase made popular by Charles Darwin. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about the plethora of religious beliefs.
It still applies.
Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.
More, I’d say.
You could do that all by yourself. :razz:Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
It’s called “descent with modification”, Alan.
What is and by whom? 'Descent with modification' is a phrase made popular by Charles Darwin. I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about the plethora of religious beliefs.
Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.
More, I'd say. Especially if one of them is JoeG. :)Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Alan:
The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons.
That doesn't help you.
But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.
It's called "descent with modification", Alan. Heck two people can watch the exact same event taking place and give two different accounts of it.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
No claim allowed without supporting evidence.
Your entire position shouldn't be allowed.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
And how about a land in which people have to support what they say as opposed to just saying it?
I am all for it! I advocate religious claims should be treated in law just like advertizing claims. No claim allowed without supporting evidence. Disappointed clients should be able to sue!Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
What evidence would that be?
The fact that human societies all over the world and over all ages have their stories and myths of creation involving gods and pantheons. But they are all different. There is no consistency other than the myths tend to reflect the culture of the particular peoples or ethnic groups.Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Because of my evidence-based suggestion that people create gods and not the other way round?
What evidence would that be?
And how about a land in which people have to support what they say as opposed to just saying it? Alan wouldn't fare too well in such a world.Joe
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
AF: It is time you moved beyond the level of silly, hostility laced cheap rhetorical shots.
Because of my evidence-based suggestion that people create gods and not the other way round? I'm quite, though not absolutely certain, of this and I can assure you that is my firm opinion. However, if Alan Fox ruled the world, Kairosfocus would be allowed the same free speech guarantees that Alan Fox would grant as inalienable rights to all. Alan Fox would draw the line at hate speech directed at minorities such as homosexuals. I do wonder how my rights to free expression would fare in Kairosfocus land.
Anyway, let me add my best wishes for a successful outcome for your son.Alan Fox
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Just what is evil? We all use the term a lot and so have millions of others.
I will ask my oft unanswered question?
What is evil?
jerry
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
"Why doesn't God do something about all the evil in the world?"
"Why does God judge so harshly?"
Evil and sin never pay, at least in the long run. Some people "get away" with things in this life, but no need to worry. God is a righteous Judge and He will hold us all accountable for our sins. No one will get away with anything, including ourselves - a sobering thought - which should lead us to evaluate our lives according to God's standards before it is too late.tjguy
July 23, 2013
July
07
Jul
23
23
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
AF: It is time you moved beyond the level of silly, hostility laced cheap rhetorical shots. The principle of sufficient reason in say a modified -- weakened -- form from Schopenhauer, that (self-evidently) we may ask why something is and seek an answer, leads to understanding contingency and necessity of being; which can be seen to pivot on on/off enabling causal factors multiplied by the issue of coherence of core attributes of being. This leads to explanation on cause [such beings have beginnings and endings etc] and explanation on necessity of being [such as the no 2 which did not begin to exist nor can it end, same for the asserted truth: 3 + 2 = 5]. Where also, just on S5, you will see there is good reason to accept that a serious candidate necessary being (and again, flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns and the like need not apply for fairly obvious reasons) will either be impossible or possible, and if the latter, actual. As God is just such, the widely unmet challenge of atheistical systems is to show God impossible, now that post Plantinga the argument from evils has collapsed. That may not be welcome news in various atheistical camps, but it shouldn't even be news if they were up on the issues. KF
PS: 1800+ onlookers/day, you may wish to look here on to see where I am coming from.kairosfocus
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
SB: Thanks for the follow-up, reinforcing the point. JWT evidently does not understand complex unity that brings togeter the one and the many on a whole -- itself a major metaphysical challenge. He would be well advised to answer Padraig's riddle as to the nature of something so commonplace as a Shamrock, which is both three and one without contradiction in a unified whole. Today has been an especially busy and testing day as a medical adventure begins. KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
JWTruthInLove
"There’s something that is both, one and three??
Hm… 1 = god, 3 = god —> 1 = 3
You’re right, there’s no contradiction."
Either you do not understand Christianity (Three persons, one God) or you do not understand the Law of Non-Contradiction (A thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the SAME SENSE).
1 = nature; 3 = persons.
God, as Trinity is ONE with respect to His nature (what) and THREE with respect to the persons (who) sharing that nature. So, God is not three in the same sense as God is one, which means that there is no contradiction.StephenB
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Axel: "Where did you get it from?"
It is a Barry original. Thanks for the comparison to Chesterton. That is truly high praise.Barry Arrington
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
People invent their gods. Hardly surprising the concept is variable and less than perfect.
And someone invented your untestable position so that must be why it is vaeriable and less than perfect.Joe
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
@kf:
At a simpler level, reflect on how a Shamrock is both one and three, without contradiction.
There's something that is both, one and three??
Hm... 1 = god, 3 = god ---> 1 = 3
You're right, there's no contradiction.JWTruthInLove
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
KF in 13 confirms how he invents his personal god to suit his personal predjudices.Alan Fox
July 22, 2013
July
07
Jul
22
22
2013
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
MF: It would seem to me that the pivotal mysteries of being and worldview foundations -- through the identity cluster and the weak form principle of sufficient reason -- are challenge enough to overturn the notion that man has made up the idea of God. Instead, as is drawn out from first principles at 101 level here on, onlookers (MF on track record is hardly likely to seriously engage), the real challenge is that we are contingent, rational and morally governed creatures in an OBSERVED cosmos that gives every evidence of being contingent also. Non-being [the real nothing] blatantly can have no causal powers. So, we look to a necessary being -- one without on/off external enabling factors, and which is possible (not similar to a square circle) -- as the root of being. Such a being would be eternal, without beginning or possibility of ending, and would arguably be intelligent, capable and purposeful enough to bring into being a cosmos both fine tuned for life and inhabited by life. Where also, such a being would obviously be worth the name, God; and, God as serious candidate necessary being -- flying spaghetti monsters etc need not apply -- will either be impossible like a square circle, or possible. And (similar to the point made in S5), if possible, actual. Such brings up profound issues that challenge our understanding, but that is not at all equivalent to such being nonsense to be brushed aside with the sort of cheap rhetorical quip we just saw. KFkairosfocus