Premier Rock Forum

matthew wrote:


you implicitly demand that God be as evident as the four walls which surround you. It is clear that this is not the case

hey, i actually agree.

matthew wrote: and we must using reasoning to determine if God exists or not and what the characteristics of this God are

nope. first we someone would have to use reasoning to explain why anyone should take the existance of god seriously.

NerblyBear wrote:

[gay voice on]Now that's what I call proof of intelligent design![/gay voice off]

clocker bob wrote: That is not my position. Did you read my spat with Gramsci? The atheists are mad at me, too. I disagree with both these statements:

I am convinced of the existence of God.

I am convinced of the absence of God.

Actually I agree with that as well. The problem I have, and have often stated, is that "God" is an entirely man made concept. So you may as well disagree with:

I am convinced of the existence of Giggomat The Creator of the Universe!

I am convinced of the absence of Giggomat The Creator of the Universe!

You are defining the very thing you are claiming to be neither convinced or convinced of... it's pure nonsense. If that is the case you may as well say anything. Fairies, unicorns etc. etc. just because this one is "the creator of all, the seat of reality" etc.... all that does is make your proposition even more incredible.

You, and Matt, are like bald two men fighting over a comb.

I'm going to depart from the metaphysical stuff for a bit and make some remarks about ID itself:

I do not believe that the argument for the existence of God from design is a valid argument because it merely says in the end that there are things which exist which are caused by other things which exist which in turn are prior. It places things, which have no necessary existence in that they can BE only AS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE, as the highest reality instead of THE ACT OF EXISTENCE ITSELF. Hence when it comes to the design we find in material things around us, from galaxies to chromosomes, it is perfectly reasonable to propose that one or more, (possibly even a vast multitude) of things which are not THE ACT OF EXISTENCE ITSELF are the intelligent agents responsible for designing these material things. I am perfectly open to the possibility that a multitude of intelligent agents.....one might even call them "gods" (always with a small "g" for sake of this argument in order to distinguish them from God), designed certain material things in this universe. In fact I think it is highly likely that this is the case, and this is not a token statement for the sake of argument. However it is not reasonable to assume that either that matter which shows evidence of intelligent design or any of the intelligent agents which may or may not have designed these things must be THE ACT OF EXISTENCE ITSELF. Granted, THE ACT OF EXISTENCE ITSELF could have designed material things, but this is a moot point and not able to be investigated further because no one was present when material things which show evidence of design were in fact designed. That said, it goes without saying that the thing or things which are or were both:

1)the designers of certain material things

and

2) also which are not THE ACT OF EXISTENCE ITSELF

must first EXIST in order BE designers! Thus it is clear that the only definitive logical certainty about God which can be said apart from appealing to revelation is that It is THAT ACT OF EXISTENCE WHICH IS EXISTENCE AND WHICH HOLD ALL OTHER THINGS WHICH EXIST IN EXISTENCE.

clocker bob wrote:Not true. Knowledge remains conjecture until it is purged of assumptions. Knowledge is reproducible verifiable information.

So then, according to you, assuming that TO BE is different from TO NOT BE can never rise beyond more than a conjecture. After all, you cannot test that conjecture because you can neither produce TO BE or TO NOT BE, you can only form concepts about THINGS which might BE or might not BE and make propositions about these concepts which you have formed. That said, since BE and NOT BE are not even producible, they are not, according to your "reasoning", verifiable and thus valid.

We're back to that choice again:

EXISTENCE=IS

or

EXISTENCE=IS-NOT

You must see by now any attempt to get around BE is impossible, Bob.

Gramsci wrote:

clocker bob wrote: That is not my position. Did you read my spat with Gramsci? The atheists are mad at me, too. I disagree with both these statements:

I am convinced of the existence of God.

I am convinced of the absence of God.

Actually I agree with that as well. The problem I have, and have often stated, is that "God" is an entirely man made concept.

Every concept ever made is an entirely man made concept, you pouting arrogant dope.

Here, I'll revise my statement for you:

I disagree with both these statements:

I am convinced of the existence of God.

I am convinced of the absence of God.

AND: I do not agree with any of the characteristics attributed to God by religious people, nor do I agree with the claims made by atheists about what God isn't.

My full revised statement: "I do not know if there is a God, nor do I attempt to describe God, other than to serve the purposes of arguments with believers or atheists".

clocker bob wrote:Every concept ever made is an entirely man made concept

Now we're getting somewhere when it comes to what a concept is! You probably didn't realize this when you typed this, but I couldn't have characterized 'concept" better myself. Thank you, Bob. I mean it.

And to follow up on Gramsci, I have already established that God is not a concept.

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Not true. Knowledge remains conjecture until it is purged of assumptions. Knowledge is reproducible verifiable information.

So then, according to you, assuming that TO BE is different from TO NOT BE can never rise beyond more than a conjecture.

Wrong. TO BE is different than NOT TO BE. TO BE can be proved. Something on the level of a supreme being cannot be proved NOT TO BE ( and yes, Gramsci, even the man made concept of God cannot be disproved ). God cannot be proved TO BE or NOT TO BE, because if the term God is interchangeable with the term 'the Creator', either in the definition used by theists ( a living God ) or in the definition used by atheists ( God is a concept, and not an entity ), then the existence or absence of a Creator cannot be proven, because there is no universally accepted explanation for the origins of the universe. The necessary agreement on the method of our creation must precede the debate over its orchestration ( or randomness ).

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Not true. Knowledge remains conjecture until it is purged of assumptions. Knowledge is reproducible verifiable information.

So then, according to you, assuming that TO BE is different from TO NOT BE can never rise beyond more than a conjecture.

Wrong. TO BE is different than NOT TO BE. TO BE can be proved. Something on the level of a supreme being cannot be proved NOT TO BE ( and yes, Gramsci, even the man made concept of God cannot be disproved ). God cannot be proved TO BE or NOT TO BE, because if the term God is interchangeable with the term 'the Creator', either in the definition used by theists ( a living God ) or in the definition used by atheists ( God is a concept, and not an entity ), then the existence or absence of a Creator cannot be proven, because there is no universally accepted explanation for the origins of the universe. The necessary agreement on the method of our creation must precede the debate over its orchestration

This is an excellent post, Bob, though not totally correct because I have never defined God as "creator" (meaning "designer") and I have shown why this is not necessarily the case. Your definitions of God which other people use do not correspond to my argument about the nature of God and I have argued that God is TO BE. Nevertheless I have underestimated you, and there is much to work with in this post. I will never call you "Kirk" ever again. On my honor.

Saaaaa-lut.

If you haven't read my recent remarks about ID, you'll find that we agree about the whole "God as Designer" aspect of ID.