matthew wrote:

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:... the ultima thule of scientific inquiry is that things which exist are intelligible and thus an intelligence is behind them. Who or what this intelligence(s) is, scientific endeavor cannot say.

ultima thule heh.

This is why you are a retard: That I understand something doesn't mean someone made it for me to understand. My cat knocks over a bowl of dried beans and some fall to the floor. I count them, and see that there are ten of them. The number of beans on the floor was not decided by the cat, it was a chance event. I only discerned how many there were by counting. Nobody intended there to be exactly ten of them, yet there they are, exactly ten. What are the odds? Astronomical! Not every household even has a cat! Astronomical odds against such a thing happening! Not eleven, but ten! Precisely ten!

Do you see? Something happened, and I was able to understand it after the fact. This does not imply intent on the part of the cat, nor design in the spillage of the beans. Nor any significance to the number of beans on the floor. It just turned out there were ten of them.

And I suppose that this sophistry is supposed to overthrow the fact that things are at their foundations intelligible? I refute it thus by striking the keys of my new Gateway notebook.

breaking news: we don't understand the foundations of things.
not that it changes the fact that you're wrong about intelligiblity of things implying existance of god.

Josef K wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Sound is moving air, which doesn't require a receptor to exist.

It requires a receptor to know that it exists (and even then, only to the receptor).

Without observation or measurement everything is only a probability.

.

Yeah, but you don't need to observe or measure it everytime. We can be certain that a tree makes noise when it falls due to what we already know about such an event.

Indeed.

... and what if the receptor isn't really hearing a noise, but it's really an evil demon with your brain in a jar!!!!

[phil 101 face]

emmanuelle cunt wrote:breaking news: we don't understand the foundations of things.
not that it changes the fact that you're wrong about intelligiblity of things implying existance of god.

I wouldn't get too worried about Matt's little brain jam. It just "highend" Catholic theology - is theology a real subject? - They've been trying out this sort of crap for the past 1500 years. You'd think 1500 years of being wrong about everything would have taught a little humility... guess not.

matthew wrote:What you neglect to directly mention is the nature of that which is encoded, transmitted and decoded: the code itself. You and I can agree that verbal and writte language is but a code I think, right? The code itself is based on real things which exist, and hence are intelligible.

No.

See, the error is your definition of "intelligible" is concurrent with "physical," which is to say it's a worthless definition that has no actual content - you accept existence as proof of intelligibility, which means that your actual position is trivially false. A rock is intelligible, in that it can be defined as an internally intelligible system with subsystems based on chemical composition. To assert that intelligibility of that sort - mere physical discreteness - implies the existence of a creating intelligence behind it is simply tautological charlatanism.

Here's your argument:
-Discrete objects exist
-Discrete objects cannot exist without the existence of a creative intelligence behind them
-Therefore a creative intelligence exists.

QED my ass.

It's an impressive retreat, however, since I already demonstrated that intelligibility in terms of understandable content is entirely dependent on the interaction with an observer.

And hey, while I'm at it I may as well go for bonus points: not only has your oh-so-important middle step been proven to be factually inaccurate, it's also internally incoherant because a creative intelligence, to correspond with any meaning of the words "creative" and "intelligence," is discrete and intelligible, implying by your own argument the existence of a creative intelligence behind it. That presents you with a cosmological choose-your-own-adventure!

Turn to page 41 if you want to assert that the intelligence exceeds intelligibility, thus making your words meaningless and your God an incoherant force defined only by its lack of definition.
Turn to page 138 if you want to sacrifice your cosmology (and rationality) by setting an infinite progression of ever-greater gods above your own.
Turn to page 1 if you want to abandon your failed attempt at argument and go back to PHIL 101.
Turn to page 67 if you want to pretend you didn't hear, pray a lot, and masturbate furiously.

Antero wrote:...you accept existence as proof of intelligibility, which means that your actual position is trivially false...

In response to this, could you make some remarks about these statements?

*Intelligible things are non-existent.

*Non-existent things are intelligible.

*Existent things are non-intelligible.

*Non-intelligible things are existent.

*Intelligible things are existent.

*Non-existent things are non-intelligible.

*Non-intelligible things are existent.

*Existent things are intelligible.

Gramsci wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:breaking news: we don't understand the foundations of things.
not that it changes the fact that you're wrong about intelligiblity of things implying existance of god.

I wouldn't get too worried about Matt's little brain jam. It just "highend" Catholic theology - is theology a real subject? - They've been trying out this sort of crap for the past 1500 years. You'd think 1500 years of being wrong about everything would have taught a little humility... guess not.

You're not off my hook yet, Gramsci. Just answer the damn question.

matthew wrote:

Antero wrote:...you accept existence as proof of intelligibility, which means that your actual position is trivially false...

In response to this, could you make some remarks about these statements?

*Intelligible things are non-existent.

*Non-existent things are intelligible.

*Existent things are non-intelligible.

*Non-intelligible things are existent.

*Intelligible things are existent.

*Non-existent things are non-intelligible.

*Non-intelligible things are existent.

*Existent things are intelligible.

Twat.

matthew wrote:*Non-existent things are intelligible.

Return the ship to the crew's control, HAL.

matthew wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:breaking news: we don't understand the foundations of things.
not that it changes the fact that you're wrong about intelligiblity of things implying existance of god.

I wouldn't get too worried about Matt's little brain jam. It just "highend" Catholic theology - is theology a real subject? - They've been trying out this sort of crap for the past 1500 years. You'd think 1500 years of being wrong about everything would have taught a little humility... guess not.

You're not off my hook yet, Gramsci. Just answer the damn question.

Matty, are you stupid? I repeat, your question is a non-question as to answer requires the answerer to step into a bullshit Catholic theology trap. It's pure nonsense as it means I have to accept that there could be some kind of "intelligent creator" as the asnwer. But no such being exists and if you think a retarded trick question is going to magic this being into existence... well, you're more of an idiot than I thought.

Stop asking Uncky Kiddy Fiddler for advice how to prove nonsense.

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:*Non-existent things are intelligible.

Return the ship to the crew's control, HAL.

Bob, your attempt at returning the favor by calling me HAL is quite ridiculous. HAL has no sense of humor......but Jim Kirk does. Just look at that backhanded knee-slapping he does, even while being thrown in the brig by Romulans!