Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

here could be "answers" that do not involve a Christian God or any other God of the kind that has been handed down to us by our ancestors. Or any God at all. We could be giving all the meaning there is to this universe through our existence and self consciousness.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't answer the question why. It takes the Adamic route of man becoming God. God is still necessary. Only man thinks he's god.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there could be "answers" that do not involve a Christian God or any other God of the kind that has been handed down to us by our ancestors. Or any God at all. We could be giving all the meaning there is to this universe through our existence and self consciousness.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't answer the question why. ... God is still necessary. Only man thinks he's god.

[/ QUOTE ]Man seems to be the only entity with self consciousness around. Man's
uniqueness itself could be the reason why Man's questions are not really answerable, because Man posits questions about "reasons why" in a universe that seems patently, altogether unconcerned with such questions. Man's an oddity innthe cosmos.

And there's another fallacy with your argument : If we cannot, as humans, find the answer to our question Why, that doesn't mean that the answer necessarily lies with some God! It might be our own limitations that prevent us from "getting it".

(E.g. a creature with twice the intelligence of Man would perhaps be able to easily decipher the cosmic enigma. David Sklansky is going for broke.)


Mickey Brausch

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks for the kind words John21. My thoughts were meant to be coming from the standpoint of a neutral onlooker, so that they would be reasonable to both sceptics and believers.

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess my point would be that it's of no use questioning the consequences of the belief, they're inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand your meaning of "consequences" in the context of what you were talking about, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that. However as a general principle, where "consequences" could have a broader meaning I think a person in the midst of this Feedback Phenomenon has not only the capability but the responsibility to check the "Fruits" of his altering experience as he goes. Like Jesus said, you will know them by their Fruits. The Feedback goes both ways. If the Fruits are bitter you can modify the interpretation or back out of it entirely. Beware the guy passing out kool-aid.

But in the fuller context of your quote:

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess my point would be that it's of no use questioning the consequences of the belief, they're inevitable. One can always counter with, "God works in mysterious ways."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't seem to be too bothered by these apparent logical inconsistenies regarding apparent implications of God being All Powerful, All knowing, All Good, Human FreeWill, etc.

I think it's perfectly fine to take a kind of childlike view of them if you want to. As a general perspective of faith they work just fine to give a sense of meaning, purpose, and order to life. If the devil is in the details, let the devil deal with them.

Personally, I like the Native American perspective where they believe in a Great Spirit but reserve respect for what they call The Great Mystery.

Best wishes,

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And there's another fallacy with your argument


[/ QUOTE ]

But you just agreed with my argument.

[ QUOTE ]

If we cannot, as humans, find the answer to our question Why, that doesn't mean that the answer necessarily lies with some God! It might be our own limitations that prevent us from "getting it".

(E.g. a creature with twice the intelligence of Man would perhaps be able to easily decipher the cosmic enigma. David Sklansky is going for broke.)


[/ QUOTE ]

It will take a lot more than twice. Um, er, I think it may take omnisciecnce.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
It will take a lot more than twice. Um, er, I think it may take omniscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Syllogism - by: NotReady

1. There is a finite bookshelf of knowledge. (I.e., omniscience about the natural world is possible.)
2. Mankind has the potential see the first n shelves. (n currently undetermined.)
----------------------------------------------------
Therefore, >=n+1 shelves exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Therefore, knowledge of God does not exist on shelf 2n.

Q.E.F'ING.D.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A Syllogism - by: NotReady


[/ QUOTE ]

Try it this way in non-technical form:

If there is any area of reality unknown to an entity that entity can't say it doesn't affect the area of reality known to the entity. Ergo, omniscience is required to know anything fully with certainty.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Ergo, omniscience is required to know anything fully with certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since you know this with certainty, I can conclude you're omniscient? Lol, it's really too easy with you, you know.

BTW, after you told me I was incapable of "basic philosophical argumentation", I spent the last couple weeks reading actual philosophers. And you know what? That brief exposure convinced me you know as much about actual philosophy as you do about actual science.

So don't bother telling me again I'm too stupid to talk to you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And since you know this with certainty, I can conclude you're omniscient?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm open to an alternate position. I'm sure it will be easy for you to formulate. And, BYW, that statement is a logical proposition. These can be known with certainty as can math. What I was referring to was empirical knowledge about reality. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

[ QUOTE ]

So don't bother telling me again I'm too stupid to talk to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wish you would cite references like that. I expect you are embellishing a bit, but of course I can't respond without citation.

As far as what I know about philosophy, I don't claim expertise there either. Perhaps you would care to expound on the precise philosophical issues you've discoved that I was wrong about?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm open to an alternate position. I'm sure it will be easy for you to formulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trivially easy. My alternate position is: "Some things can be certainly known without omniscience."

[ QUOTE ]
And, BYW, that statement is a logical proposition. These can be known with certainty as can math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and those certain logical propositions are called "tautologies." Your proposition is not a tautology. In fact, it's self-stultifying, as can also be seen trivially:

(1) Every statement about empirical reality requires omniscience to be known certainly.
(2) But (1) is a statement about empirical reality.
(3) So (1) cannot be known certainly without omniscience.
(4) But assuming omniscience is a solipsism.
(5) So (1) cannot be known certainly.

Seriously, are you doing your best A.J. Ayer impersonation? Because it's not bad if that's what you're doing.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish you would cite references like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here. Since "basic philosophical argumentation" is generally pretty self-evident, I think it's fair to characterize someone incapable of it as "stupid."

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you would care to expound on the precise philosophical issues you've discoved that I was wrong about?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "philosophical issue" you're wrong about is assuming you're certainly right about anything philosophical.