Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe I should say the analogy is self-limiting. If I see a clock, I may conclude that there is a clock-maker, since we know that clocks are created and not grown. But if I see a tree, I don’t posit a tree-maker; I think in terms of seeds and natural processes of birth, growth, death (which is why most religions based on “natural revelation” tend to treat time in a cyclical, rather than a linear, fashion).
He points to things we know have creators, an those that don't want
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
If I use such natural examples, I may well conclude—and reasonably so—that God is more like a “birther,” rather than a creator (which is the conclusion of some religious traditions), and more feminine in nature than masculine, for example. This analogy may be self-limiting too—all our attempts may be—but it might also be a better analogy than that of a painting.
If one wants to argue from nature to God, one has to realize that we do not find artifacts in nature. And to treat nature as an artifact, even for purposes of analogy, ignores its organic elements. You are not an artifact: you are a living being who was conceived and born, not manufactured and assembled. If I see you, I do not conclude the existence of a creator/assembler—I conclude the existence of mother and father...
None of this has anything to do with the question of whether there is or is not a God. It does have to do with choosing analogies that presume the kind of God one wants, or already believes in. Or, looking at alternative analogies and seeing where they might lead. I think the notion of God (or gods) as a conceiver/birther makes more sense than God as a manufacturer—at least it doesn’t make any less sense.
Originally posted by KellyJayI've always found you to be worth the effort. 🙂
🙂 I'm glad you tried. Not having a word for it was the right answer if
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 vistesdIf I see you, I do not conclude the existence of a creator/assembler—I conclude the existence of mother and father...
Maybe I should say the analogy is self-limiting. If I see a clock, I may conclude that there is a clock-maker, since we know that clocks are created and not grown. But if I see a tree, I don’t posit a tree-maker; I think in terms of seeds and natural processes of birth, growth, death (which is why most religions based on “natural revelation” tend to treat ...[text shortened]... ver/birther makes more sense than God as a manufacturer—at least it doesn’t make any less sense.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
For instance, we may some day see "designer babies" whose genes have been manipulated to avoid disease and increase physical and intellectual performance. Is such a baby "created" or "designed" (like a clock)? In a sense, it is. Is such a baby also "born" and "grown"? Of course.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, but again, you’re citing an artifactual scenario in order to get a God who is an artificer. This also seems to require a highly anthropomorphic presumption about the nature of God.
[b]If I see you, I do not conclude the existence of a creator/assembler—I conclude the existence of mother and father...
The two are not mutually exclusive.
For instance, we may some day see "designer babies" whose genes have been manipulated to avoid disease and increase physical and intellectual performance. Is such a baby "created" or "de ...[text shortened]... (like a clock)? In a sense, it is. Is such a baby also "born" and "grown"? Of course.[/b]
Now, you personally may have no objections to a God who is a conceiver/birther, nor the feminine qualities of God that such entails. Some seem to.
On the other hand, I think your example introduces another level of complexity worth considering. I might not get this out clearly, but I think it may hark back to something you once said that might here go along the lines of: since we are part of nature, and natural beings; and since we have the capability of conceiving (mentally here) and constructing artifacts, that can at least to that extent be taken as a feature of nature, just as is organic emergence and growth. Is that close to what you’re saying? If it is, I need to think about it a bit...
Originally posted by dj2beckerHere's one I was reading about just yesterday.
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]
The hexagonal sand imprints left by the deep sea Paleodictyon look pretty designed if you ever see photos of them. But they occur naturally.
Evading the issue?
Damn right.
I'm sick of idiots that keep spouting crap that was pretty successfully refuted a couple of hundred years ago.
How do I know?
I don't of course - I'm not that zealous that I place absolute faith in any particular scientific theorem or model.
Which is the point now isn't it - science allows for doubt; your mindless viewpoint will brook none.
Originally posted by sugiezdHe wasn't a scientist, where'd you get that idea.
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.
I'm not agreeing with him either.
Simply pointing out that the world is full of people who believe in gods. They're not all the raving lunatic fundamentalists who love responding to atheists posts here ...
Just grabbed this off the Wikipedia section on Intelligent Design.
Couldn't resist sharing it ...
Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion [1 in 6x10^11]. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.
Originally posted by amannionThat gets one of my (now miserly) recs.
Just grabbed this off the Wikipedia section on Intelligent Design.
Couldn't resist sharing it ...
Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion [1 in 6x10^11]. Still, it would be absurd for someone t ...[text shortened]... at he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.
Originally posted by vistesdUntil DNA was discovered I'd agree with you, but the information within
Maybe I should say the analogy is self-limiting. If I see a clock, I may conclude that there is a clock-maker, since we know that clocks are created and not grown. But if I see a tree, I don’t posit a tree-maker; I think in terms of seeds and natural processes of birth, growth, death (which is why most religions based on “natural revelation” tend to treat ...[text shortened]... ver/birther makes more sense than God as a manufacturer—at least it doesn’t make any less sense.
it, the work that is done due to it, doesn't simply just happen as some
believe.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayUnfortunately, I don’t know enough about DNA and what “information” means in that context, or the extent to which it supports ID. I recall some discussion of that on here, but not what was said. Even if you’re right, we’re still talking about something organic and not mechanical, aren’t we? Are you thinking along the lines of something like “organic programming”? (That might tie in with LH’s point.) I’d like to hear what Scott the biologist has to say—he’s probably already said it, but, as I say, I’ve forgotten.
Until DNA was discovered I'd agree with you, but the information within
it, the work that is done due to it, doesn't simply just happen as some
believe.
Kelly
I see your last game is with Del. I’m only playing a couple unrated games with long time-outs for fun now, and one is with Del.
Originally posted by KellyJayInformation does not stay constant from one generation to the next.
I can say I agree with that statement and still not be agreeing with
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 ...[text shortened]... in its operation and duplication.
I have doubts on your abilities for the knee too.
Kelly
Does the word "mutation" mean anything to you? They happen all the time, in simple organisms such as bacteria, for example. How do you think drug resitant strains appear?
Something inanimate which is as complex as life which was not desogned - the cosmos.
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not believe anything - you show a fundemantal missunderstanding.
Proof must be accepted as that, you can see evidence for children
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 ...[text shortened]... n if you sprinkle a little natural
facts in it here and there to cover it up your faith.
Kelly
The absence of belief is not a belief in its self, ie I do not believe that there is no god. The ground state (null hypothesis, if you prefer) is tat there is no god. Those that, for some reason (I'll go into that more thoroughly if you like), believe that there, have the onus of proof squarely on their shoulders.
There is not a single fact which proves the existance of god.
On the other hand, their is a miriad of data supporting evolution.
Where would the smart money go?
Originally posted by amannionSorry, crossed wire from another post.
He wasn't a scientist, where'd you get that idea.
I'm not agreeing with him either.
Simply pointing out that the world is full of people who believe in gods. They're not all the raving lunatic fundamentalists who love responding to atheists posts here ...
He's still full of it though.
Originally posted by vistesdWell, why not go away, learn a little of what DNA is about, including its mutation and the effects thereof and then come back.
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about DNA and what “information” means in that context, or the extent to which it supports ID. I recall some discussion of that on here, but not what was said. Even if you’re right, we’re still talking about something organic and not mechanical, aren’t we? Are you thinking along the lines of something like “organic progr ...[text shortened]... . I’m only playing a couple unrated games with long time-outs for fun now, and one is with Del.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat some being you and your compatriots Kelly. Are you really attempting to say that you know more about DNA than scientists who have spent their life studying it?
Until DNA was discovered I'd agree with you, but the information within
it, the work that is done due to it, doesn't simply just happen as some
believe.
Kelly
You self-important bastard.