matthew wrote:...HAL has no sense of humor......

Irony in the morning, lovin' it.

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.

No, because you just stuck the words together in a fashion that is appropriately neither intelligible nor meaningful, but apparently existent.

edit: Shit, I actually DID make a remark about those statements.

I'd just like to announce to the EA forum members interested in this issue--specifically, the ones who have engaged in debate with me--that I have finally and officially decided that there is no god. The arguments of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have excoriated any remaining detritus in my brain stalling my decision on this important issue. Evolution is an airtight theory. The Bible is a myth and has no ground or evidence. Life is not teleological or designed. I just wanted to let everyone know this.

There is no god, and I'm finally okay with saying that. I feel like a fool for maintaining otherwise.

Whew.

NerblyBear wrote:The Bible is a myth and has no ground or evidence. Life is not teleological or designed. I just wanted to let everyone know this.

Whew.

Aren't you painting yourself into a corner by stating that 'there is no God'? It's so much easier to say, "I don't know how we got here- maybe there is a God." Leave your options open. We're never going to know, nor are we meant to know. You don't need to reject God to endorse evolution, unless I'm missing something.

clocker bob wrote:
Aren't you painting yourself into a corner by stating that 'there is no God'? It's so much easier to say, "I don't know how we got here- maybe there is a God." Leave your options open. We're never going to know, nor are we meant to know. You don't need to reject God to endorse evolution, unless I'm missing something.

True to form, Bob. It's good to know that you are keepin' the faith!

clocker bob wrote:
Aren't you painting yourself into a corner by stating that 'there is no God'? It's so much easier to say, "I don't know how we got here- maybe there is a God." Leave your options open. We're never going to know, nor are we meant to know. You don't need to reject God to endorse evolution, unless I'm missing something.

Of course, I can't be 100 percent sure that there is no god, but I'm 99 percent sure. This is not "leaving my options open". I am rejecting god and endorsing evolution. God and evolution are diametrically opposed, and I'm not going to play down my decision by giving credence to the god argument.

NerblyBear wrote: God and evolution are diametrically opposed.

I can't agree. They could be contractor and subcontractor, the pool cue and the break of the balls. Just because some God followers can't incorporate evolution into their understanding of creation doesn't mean that I can't incorporate God into my theory of evolution. I choose not to put any effort into divining the origin of life though, because I know I'll never find the necessary evidence. I don't need to know how I got here to feel good about my life, or to be more comfortable with death.

clocker bob wrote:

NerblyBear wrote: God and evolution are diametrically opposed.

I can't agree. They could be contractor and subcontractor, the pool cue and the break of the balls. Just because some God followers can't incorporate evolution into their understanding of creation doesn't mean that I can't incorporate God into my theory of evolution. I choose not to put any effort into divining the origin of life though, because I know I'll never find the necessary evidence. I don't need to know how I got here to feel good about my life, or to be more comfortable with death.

Sure.

An intelligence might have caused both the alleged biological evolutionary process and the presumed evolution of the entire universe. That's a pretty innocuous hypothesis and/or theory on the surface.

But there's an implicit problem with any honest theistic theory of evolution in that it would require the direct intervention of this intelligence/deity in innumerable instances to bring not only life, but the universe as a whole to the state it presently in. There is no indication that this intelligence has intervened in such a manner to "evolve" things because the structure of the known universe and more importantly biological life seems to consist of structures and compositions of irreducibly complex parts. (and N.B. to Ken Miller- the fact that one part such as a protein might have several potential functions among different structures in the cellular wall is not a refutation of Behe. It only embellishes his point and makes it all the more interesting.). Mere chance cannot account for this fact. There is no evidence that there are "failed chances" in the past.....and I don't mean Neanderthals either.

In the end here is what biological science has to say about the origin of life:

Nothing.


The same goes with physics, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics and all the rest. They can discern intelligent design within certain things within their scope of study, but that is just where they end. Any hypothesis on the part of science and mathematics regarding the origin of the fundamental components of life, matter, energy and the universe as a whole is a hybristic overstepping of the parameters of the given field. Science has limits, and it is best that it keep its mouth shut regarding things outside its limits.

no.



god is "alleged". Science has trial and error to move towards a more finite understanding.



I'm sorry you didn't get the memo.

matthew wrote:
Sure.

An intelligence might have caused both the alleged biological evolutionary process and the presumed evolution of the entire universe. That's a pretty unnecessary hypothesis and/or theory on the surface.

There's also an implicit problem with any honest theistic theory of evolution in that it would require the direct intervention of this intelligence/deity in innumerable instances to bring not only life, but the universe as a whole to the state it is presently in. There is no indication that this intelligence has intervened in such a manner to "evolve" things even though the structure of the known universe and more importantly biological life seems to consist of structures and compositions of [seemingly] irreducibly complex parts. On first glance--and especially when the idea of God has been ceaselessly drummed into one's paltry mental apparatus-- mere chance seemingly could not account for this fact.

In the end here is what the Bible has to say about the origin of life:

Nothing.


The same goes with physics, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics and all the rest--when these respectable fields are corrupted by Biblical dogma. They can keep making groundless claims that they discern intelligent design within certain things within their scope of study, but that should be ignored by thinking people. Any hypothesis on the part of Biblical apologists regarding the origin of the fundamental components of life, matter, energy and the universe as a whole is a hybristic overstepping of the parameters of the given field. Religion has limits, and it is best that it keep its mouth shut regarding things outside its limits.

FYP.