Originally posted by howardgeeMakes sense to me.
Inductive reasoning:
Artist 1 has been seen creating painting i.
Artist 2 has been seen creating painting ii.
Artist 3 has been seen creating painting iii.
Here is painting iv. It has been painted by an artist.
Compare and contrast to the universe and intelligent design.
Universe 1 has been seen created by God i.
Oh no wait, it hasn't. We ha ...[text shortened]... argument is fallacious and we cannot apply inductive reasoning to the creation of the universe.
Originally posted by KellyJayAh, I think I understand (stir my thickened brain). But just to see, let me lay it out for myself—
I know you cannot prove it, but that is still the starting place where
both sides of the discussion begin is it not? Beginning with there is
or there isn't meaning; it does not matter what side we find ourselves
in, we are making assumptions and taking a stance and beg the
other side to move us. We know that isn't going to happen if we
don't want it to ...[text shortened]... s (at least in relation to humanity).” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism; my bold]”[/b]
Assuming:
(1) that meaning is disclosed by (a) the universe, or (b) God, or (c) both;
(2) that I am fully cognizant of that disclosure and understand it; and
(3) that I reject that meaning as relevant for my life—
I can either reject it because, (a) although I understand it, I find it repugnant (say morally or aesthetically)to my personal values,* or (b) because I simply don’t want to believe it, and so I “cheat,” as Camus put it, and deceive myself. In the first case, I am making a rebellion—perhaps nobly, perhaps not (we haven’t put content into the meaning we’re talking about)—perhaps in the interest of trying to forge another meaning that has not been disclosed. In the second case, I would say I am acting with what Sartre called bad faith, trying to delude myself into believing that what is there isn’t.
I don’t know if there is a name for either of those (after all that: sorry). An absurdist says that meaning is not given to us. A nihilist says that, not only is there no given meaning, we are unable to compose either meaning or values, and hence life is worthless—I think nihilism is practically untenable; Camus rejects it as he rejects suicide.
My starting position (note that it has not always been my position) is that of absurdism, in which we are left to compose meaning, either individually or in concert, whether we like it or not. I think that much of our religious mythology, as well as philosophy, is exactly that: using our aesthetic, imaginative and conceptualization capacities, and our intellect, to compose meaning (and, in myth, to tell stories of meaning) in the face of absurdity and mystery. I think that is to be appreciated—so long as that “ironic distance” is maintained—and that it’s ultimate value is tested in how well it guides us in living out our lives.
* Note: We are talking about meaning here—not factual truth, but what the facts might mean.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes, but these non-organic, artifactual examples (paintings, clocks, buildings) beg the question, since the artificer is implied in the artifact.
You are missing the point. If you see a painting, say for example, 'Mona Lisa', would you say that an intelligent hand did the painting, or random chance is responsible?
What can you do with a naturally occurring organic example—say the trees growing in the woods behind my house (as opposed to the carefully arranged flowers in our garden)?
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf god designed humans, he did one hell of a poor job.
You are just evading the issue.
[b]Something can exhibit the appearance of design without being designed.
There are plenty of examples of objects in nature that exhibit the appearance of design that have not been designed.
Which objects would these be? How do you know that they have not been designed?[/b]
We are a mass of design flaws - let me know where he studied engineering, it's one to avoid.
Originally posted by vistesdYou are getting my question now at least, the starting point no matter
Ah, I think I understand (stir my thickened brain). But just to see, let me lay it out for myself—
Assuming:
(1) that meaning is disclosed by (a) the universe, or (b) God, or (c) both;
(2) that I am fully cognizant of that disclosure and understand it; and
(3) that I reject that meaning as relevant for my life—
I can either reject ...[text shortened]... e are talking about meaning here—not factual truth, but what the facts might mean.
what it is runs the risk of being wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdHe points to things we know have creators, an those that don't want
Yes, but these non-organic, artifactual examples (paintings, clocks, buildings) beg the question, since the artificer is implied in the artifact.
What can you do with a naturally occurring organic example—say the trees growing in the woods behind my house (as opposed to the carefully arranged flowers in our garden)?
there to be one, deny one in life. It is simply everyone stating what
they believe to be true. Since life is typically the subject of is there a
creator or not, it is circular to say there isn't one and use life as an
example for that belief.
Kelly
Originally posted by sugiezdI'll give you that as soon as you design a life form better and show
If god designed humans, he did one hell of a poor job.
We are a mass of design flaws - let me know where he studied engineering, it's one to avoid.
me your engineering abilities are better in the creation of life.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm a biologist (originally a zoologist). I'm not an engineer but I could do better for a knee joint.
I'll give you that as soon as you design a life form better and show
me your engineering abilities are better in the creation of life.
Kelly
Face it, we (and every other living creature) are the products of evolution. Some systems work well and some not so well whilst others are now vestigeal.
Originally posted by amannionWhat an absolute, grade A, copper-bottomed, dyed in the wool load of cobblers.
I'm not so sure about all faith being blind.
I think you have to distinguish between the types of faiths that people hold.
Here's an excerpt from a forum held in Australia recently about the Nature of belief (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm🙄. The participants were a scientist, a science writer and a theologian.
This wa ...[text shortened]... things I believe such that it gives some integrity to what I believe', then yes.[/i]
This theologian/scientist is full of s*it.
A scientist should accept nothing without proof - maybe when his wife tells him she's having an affair, he'll realise that.
Originally posted by sugiezdI can say I agree with that statement and still not be agreeing with
I'm a biologist (originally a zoologist). I'm not an engineer but I could do better for a knee joint.
Face it, we (and every other living creature) are the products of evolution. Some systems work well and some not so well whilst others are now vestigeal.
your take on evolution. You find the way living systems are put
together, the way the information with in them stays constant from
one generation to the next, the way many of the parts all have to
depend on one another for things that happen at just the right time,
so simple that you can say there wasn't a need for design, that is
what you believe, I disagree. Show me something so complex that
wasn't designed that operates on the level of life that just happened
through random chance with available material and time through
some form of natural selection! Out side of the beliefs that those
who proclaim evolution only is the reason for life, it cannot be done.
Even our processors do not achieve the level of engineering that life
shows in its operation and duplication.
I have doubts on your abilities for the knee too.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesd🙂 I'm glad you tried. Not having a word for it was the right answer if
Sorry it took me so long. 😳
that is the case. That was really all I wanted to know, I wasn't looking
to start a debate on truth. I'm down to my last game now, so as soon
as it is done I'm gone for awhile.
Kelly
Originally posted by sugiezdProof must be accepted as that, you can see evidence for children
What an absolute, grade A, copper-bottomed, dyed in the wool load of cobblers.
This theologian/scientist is full of s*it.
A scientist should accept nothing without proof - maybe when his wife tells him she's having an affair, he'll realise that.
by seeing toys in someone’s home, but that does not mean that
there are children there, or that they have ever been there either.
When you accept something and apply it to all other things as
proof it than becomes foundational to all your beliefs. If you are
wrong on that point you have built your belief system on it, it
becomes a faulty foundation, but you will defend it. If your
foundation has something that cannot be proven wrong you have
left proof, and have placed yourself in faith, and if you are using
something that cannot be shown as wrong your whole belief
system is now based on faith even if you sprinkle a little natural
facts in it here and there to cover it up your faith.
Kelly