Whose side am I on?

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 01:24pm

They can coexist so long as it is admitted that religion is an irrational process. The difficulties arise when one tries to pervert fact and scientific method in an effort to support and sustain religion. That was the fatal flaw in your approach, one that is currently being utilized by the intellectually dishonest ID crowd.

Dishonesty was not the intention. I hope that was clear if nothing else. All I was really trying to say was that I believe that the observable, repeatable, knowable world of physical phenomina was created by god. Thus it is still possible to have faith and fossils records of mans evolution (and every other species too) Since as I fully admit that there is no proof of gods existence, I must also admit that my belief in him is purely irrational.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 01:34pm

Thus it is still possible to have faith and fossils records of mans evolution (and every other species too)

Yet faith is not a requirement for the scientific process to function.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 01:44pm

Yet faith is not a requirement for the scientific process to function.

nope. Never said it was.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 01:56pm

Many people would argue so, unfortunately.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-05-17 02:38pm

jasonicusuk wrote: Science is based upon observation yes, but there is a certain degree of faith also. We observe that the sun rose yesterday and that it rose again today, just as it has done since time immemorial. But until it rises again tommorrow, we have no defiante proof that it will. All we have is speculation based upon prior experience. A very, very educated guess.

Nope, this is bullshit. It's not by faith we can predict the Sun will rise in the East, it's by reason. The prediction that the Sun will rise in the East is quite clearly not faith based, it's based on experience and logic. The reasoning supporting the prediction is sound and based on prior empirically gained knowledge and evidence, this is what makes it reasonable to believe, and not faith.

Faith is not a reasoned belief, the Sun rising is. One could, theoretically take the belief on faith, for example, if humankind became a subterranean race and the knowledge and experience was lost through the ages. That kind of belief, that does not rest on material evidence and the reasoning extrapolating from that, is faith.

Complexity is not what defines artificiality or design, it's that it doesn't fit with observed natural process

If I'm arguing that nature was designed, then its design is going to be in keeping with natural processes, isn't it. I never said that nature was atificial.

That's what design implies, artificiality. Things would be different if left to their own devices rather than through the intervention of the designer.

Yes I can. I can point out that both the pocket watch and the human eye both have complex working parts that interact with each other and are all interdepensant on each other being the correct size and shape in order for the whole to function properly.

Uh-huh, how many people that read this are wearing glasses?

I didn't say that the watch was different from nature, I said that it was complex like nature. I said that they were akin. And yes, by my arguement the rock would also be designed, as it is part of the earths geology which is a complex structure.

Which means your comparison meant completely dick.

To put it another way, look at the complexity involved when water freezes. All those difficult to understand patterns. Who designs them so perfectly? Nobody, they just act that way due to chemical properties and the reduction of energy in the system they're in.

Sloppy language on my part. I didn't mean that god invented the discipline of science. I meant to say that he designed a universe that is observable, repeatable and understandable.

How? From what? Where did his inherent universe-creating complexity and intelligence come from that also could not apply to the fundamental properties the universe has from existing?

A better God would not make a system where you can only survive by hurting and killing competition and food.
I never claimed that he was a good god.

You said "which is better," which implies some sort of good/bad grading scale.

I know you said you conceded, but I had to reply anyway.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 03:30pm

I know you said you conceded, but I had to reply anyway. Razz

It's a fair cop.

As you rightly pointed out, I have already conceeded, so this post is largly academic, but heck, so is everything else I do:

That's what design implies, artificiality. Things would be different if left to their own devices rather than through the intervention of the designer.

In the model I hypothesised, nature is not interfered with after it is set in motion, it is set off according to a plan and then left alone. To the hypothesised god, nothing is natural as everything works according to his design, but to us human beings, it is perfectly natural to us as we are part of it.

Uh-huh, how many people that read this are wearing glasses?

I'm wearing glasses. But glasses are part of the plan. As were the clever-dick humans that discovered the properties of lenses. As were the human beings who discovered that sand can be used to make glass. I'm not sure I believe any of this grand master plan bollocks, as I believe in free will, but like I said, it was an attempt to reconcile religion and science (an unsuccesful one at that.)

How? From what? Where did his inherent universe-creating complexity and intelligence come from that also could not apply to the fundamental properties the universe has from existing?

No. Here's where my arguement sucks. There is no proof of this. But I conceeded that already.

You said "which is better," which implies some sort of good/bad grading scale.

I did. Makes animals < Makes evolving animals < makes world where killing is not neccessary. I said that god B was better than god A. God b coud still chug the cock!

I know you said you conceded, but I had to reply anyway.

I appreciate it, in fact. I have spent to much time revising the grand theories set down by long dead philosophers, its nice to have some practicle wisdom smack them back into place.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2005-05-17 03:55pm

jasonicusuk wrote: I can point out that both the pocket watch and the human eye both have complex working parts that interact with each other and are all interdepensant on each other being the correct size and shape in order for the whole to function properly.

You seem to be implying that the watch is complex and we know it was designed, therefore the eye must be designed because it is also complex.

That is a logical fallacy. To take your example a step further to point out the error: If everything humans design have complexity, then must everything with complexity be designed by humans? Of course not. Then why must everything that is complex even be "designed"??? The fact that intelligence is able to create complexity doesn't mean that everything that is complex bust be created by intelligence.

We know the stuff that is designed by humans is designed by intelligence, by definition. The pocket watch looks like it was intelligently designed because it *looks like a human designed machine* (ie it has a visual similarity) If an eye and pocket watch were so similar in complexity, then why aren't people mistaking eyes for human-designed mechanisms???

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:04pm

You seem to be implying that the watch is complex and we know it was designed, therefore the eye must be designed because it is also complex.

Yes. thats the jist of it.

We know the stuff that is designed by humans is designed by intelligence, by definition. The pocket watch looks like it was intelligently designed because it *looks like a human designed machine* (ie it has a visual similarity) If an eye and pocket watch were so similar in complexity, then why aren't people mistaking eyes for human-designed mechanisms???

The word human is a misnomer. The watch is designed by a human, yes. But the human element is irrelevent. it is designed by an intelligence. It looks like an intelligence designed machine. So then why aren't people mistaking eyes for intellegence designed mechanisms? They are. Every damned day. Every fundemental christian who believes in creationsism.

[/quote]

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 04:14pm

jasonicusuk wrote:It looks like an intelligence designed machine.

Appeal to emotion. The fact that it "looks" designed doesn't mean that it was.

So then why aren't people mistaking eyes for intellegence designed mechanisms?

Because rational-thinking people realize there's no apparent designer around who could have made them, nor is there a reason to suspect that there is (evolution explains their existence nicely).

They are. Every damned day. Every fundemental christian who believes in creationsism.

And they are ignorant of the subject they are attacking.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:22pm

Appeal to emotion. The fact that it "looks" designed doesn't mean that it was.

I was using Zoink's wording to answer his reply. He said 'look like a human designed machine.' and I change the word 'human' to 'intelligence.' Read the whole thread before you start picking holes.

Because rational-thinking people realize there's no apparent designer around who could have made them, nor is there a reason to suspect that there is (evolution explains their existence nicely).

Same again. I already explained that I was hypothesising, that I don't go in for this whole design lark because it violates my belief in free will. I also conceeded about half a page ago. I answered Rye because my first post was in responce to him.

And they are ignorant of the subject they are attacking

Yes. i think this has been established.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:26pm

shit. That last one say's 'Don't go in for design lark' should read 'master plan lark.' I do believe that god created the universe and everything in it. I don't believe that everything we do is part of that design. Just clearing up an inconsistency.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 04:27pm

jasonicusuk wrote:I was using Zoink's wording to answer his reply. He said 'look like a human designed machine.' and I change the word 'human' to 'intelligence.' Read the whole thread before you start picking holes.

I already did. I was quoting the relevant statement.

Same again. I already explained that I was hypothesising, that I don't go in for this whole design lark because it violates my belief in free will. I also conceeded about half a page ago. I answered Rye because my first post was in responce to him.

That doesn't change the fact that rational-thinking people don't argue the eye was designed because there is no reason to believe so.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:31pm

I already conceed that there is no rational way to reconcile religion and science. So, other than chugging up your impressive post count, what are you trying to say?

me: Yes. I admit that my beief in God is irrational.

You: That doesn't change the fact that rational-thinking people don't argue the eye was designed because there is no reason to believe so.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 04:33pm

That's exactly it.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:34pm

So you got me to admit to something that I already freely admited to over half a page ago. Well done. You must be very proud.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-17 04:36pm

No, I just wanted to make sure everything was clear.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 04:37pm

fair enough.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2005-05-17 04:49pm

[quote="jasonicusuk"
The word human is a misnomer. The watch is designed by a human, yes. But the human element is irrelevent. it is designed by an intelligence. It looks like an intelligence designed machine.
[/quote]

But your example of "intelligence" is "human intelligence". You can't deny that without making a logical fallacy.

If "human" is a misnomer, then when you see a pocket watch do you have trouble deciding if it was designed by a monkey or a human? No. The watch is a distinctly human object.

The pocket watch looks like a mechanism that is typically designed by humans, which by definition required human intelligence. THAT is why its obviously intelligently designed.

We observe/define that:
Human design is intelligence (all A = B, but not all B = A)
Human designed object are complex (All A = C, but not all C = A)

You're making the leap to say all complex object must therefore come from intelligence. (Therefore all C = B)

That's like saying "All dalmations are pets and all the dalmations have spots, therefore everything with spots are pets". It doesn't work that way.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2005-05-17 04:52pm

jasonicusuk wrote: You: That doesn't change the fact that rational-thinking people don't argue the eye was designed because there is no reason to believe so.

A rational person says that the eye "could have been designed" (1), not "it must have been designed" (2).

Statement (2) is irrational because there is no evidence or logical statement saying it must.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 07:26pm

A rational person says that the eye "could have been designed"

Ah, the salty tang of being pwn'd. Yes. I agree. A rational person does say (1) and an irrational person (2). The watch analogy then allows for the notion that complexity *might* equal design and be evidence for an intelligence behind it. But then it also might not. Since there is no evidence that there is, the idea of a designer is adding a needless factor, therefore it is more logical to believe that there was infact no designer.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-05-17 07:31pm

addendum:

You're making the leap to say all complex object must therefore come from intelligence.

By implying that god started all of the universes complex systems in motion; that's exactly what I'm saying. I have seen the fallacy, however and I have conceeded. Thanks everybody. It was fun.

[/quote]