Religions > Atheism > Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2005 04:28:10 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
From the article:
-------------------------------
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in America. A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy Sayler
in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler, in
keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a number of
egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent designer or
the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various aspects of
the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a philosophical
posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!
---------------------------------
Read it at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=87529
§ion=Opinion or http://tinyurl.com/4r6ll
(get a login ID at http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.in-forum.com )
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 05:36:17 AM |
|
|
I think this article sums it up pretty well:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&chanID=sa008
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Xns962D37A8B3307notreallyjspacemanho@216.196.97.142...
From the article:
-------------------------------
By John J. Pexton, The Forum
Published Sunday, April 03, 2005
Spurious creationist arguments against the legitimacy of evolutionary
biology apparently reappear with a depressing regularity in America. A
thinly disguised re-working of these discredited ideas is the relatively
new concept of "intelligent design theory," as championed by Tracy Sayler
in The Forum (March 27 "Darwinism a religion in itself"). Sayler, in
keeping with fellow "intelligent design theorists," commits a number of
egregious errors in his reasoning and in his characterization of science.
Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent designer or
the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various aspects of
the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a philosophical
posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!
---------------------------------
Read it at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=87529
§ion=Opinion or http://tinyurl.com/4r6ll
(get a login ID at http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.in-forum.com )
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 05:37:35 AM |
|
|
It's easier to show that the christian story is fatally flawed, simply
be starting from the beginning of their beliefs. It's start from the
fundamental christian 'knowledge' that god is all-knowing, perfect
planning and perfect designing. So...before 'god' even makes anything
physically, god already knew what the future product would do. Why?
It's because 'god' chose every single future mechanical action for the
product. And why must it be so that 'god' chose all of those actions in
advance? It's because the 'product' (ie the universe - people etc)
wasn't even around when 'god' already knew every single future
mechanical action for the product.
So..if the product hasn't even been created, and yet every future
mechanical action had already been perfectly planned (and thus known in
advance).... then the product can't have any free-will
whatsoever...since everything's already 'fixed' in advance.
Basically.....if you start with an entity that's all-knowing AND
perfect planning AND perfect designing, then there's no way that the
entity can create a product that does something different than what
he/she/it chose perfectly and planned perfectly (in terms of mechanical
actions).
So the bottom line is....if christians reckon their god is all-knowing,
perfect planning, and perfect designing......then obviously the product
(humans etc) cannot have free-will. And if christians think that the
product can have free-will, then it is self-evident that god cannot be
all-knowing, and cannot be a perfect planner/designer. But since
christians believe that god is an all-knowing perfect planner and
perfect designer, and at the same time believe that god's product has
free-will.....then it simply means that christians are just ignorant
folks that simply don't accept being wrong, and don't accept being
proven outright wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 07:20:35 AM |
|
|
"Kenny" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112524655.894375.60020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's easier to show that the christian story is fatally flawed, simply
be starting from the beginning of their beliefs. It's start from the
fundamental christian 'knowledge' that god is all-knowing, perfect
planning and perfect designing. So...before 'god' even makes anything
physically, god already knew what the future product would do. Why?
It's because 'god' chose every single future mechanical action for the
product. And why must it be so that 'god' chose all of those actions in
advance? It's because the 'product' (ie the universe - people etc)
wasn't even around when 'god' already knew every single future
mechanical action for the product.
So..if the product hasn't even been created, and yet every future
mechanical action had already been perfectly planned (and thus known in
advance).... then the product can't have any free-will
whatsoever...since everything's already 'fixed' in advance.
Basically.....if you start with an entity that's all-knowing AND
perfect planning AND perfect designing, then there's no way that the
entity can create a product that does something different than what
he/she/it chose perfectly and planned perfectly (in terms of mechanical
actions).
So the bottom line is....if christians reckon their god is all-knowing,
perfect planning, and perfect designing......then obviously the product
(humans etc) cannot have free-will. And if christians think that the
product can have free-will, then it is self-evident that god cannot be
all-knowing, and cannot be a perfect planner/designer. But since
christians believe that god is an all-knowing perfect planner and
perfect designer, and at the same time believe that god's product has
free-will.....then it simply means that christians are just ignorant
folks that simply don't accept being wrong, and don't accept being
proven outright wrong.
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's also the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities (tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than if He
chose to know everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 04:34:47 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<CbR3e.3137$ZV5.617@fed1read05>...
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's also the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities (tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than if He
chose to know everything.
yah.... but if god is 'supposed' to be all-knowing and a perfect
planner/designer...then there's no way that he can 'choose' not to
know 'something'. Because if he 'chose' not to know something...then
obviously he/she/it wouldn't be all-knowing....right? Yes...that's
right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
03 Apr 2005 07:05:23 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504031334.1cb9c0ba@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<CbR3e.3137$ZV5.617@fed1read05>...
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's also
the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities
(tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than if
He
chose to know everything.
yah.... but if god is 'supposed' to be all-knowing and a perfect
planner/designer...then there's no way that he can 'choose' not to
know 'something'. Because if he 'chose' not to know something...then
obviously he/she/it wouldn't be all-knowing....right? Yes...that's
right.
You're assuming that you can judge the motivations of an infinite
self-conscious entity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 03:51:34 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4w%3e.3195$ZV5.1542@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504031334.1cb9c0ba@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<CbR3e.3137$ZV5.617@fed1read05>...
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's also
the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities
(tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than if
He
chose to know everything.
yah.... but if god is 'supposed' to be all-knowing and a perfect
planner/designer...then there's no way that he can 'choose' not to
know 'something'. Because if he 'chose' not to know something...then
obviously he/she/it wouldn't be all-knowing....right? Yes...that's
right.
You're assuming that you can judge the motivations of an infinite
self-conscious entity.
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will....because the product
was not even around when this 'god' knew every single one of the
product's future mechanical actions/movements. And the reason for this
knowledge is because this 'god' chose every single one of those
movements for the product...before the product was even around. If the
product is not yet around...then the only cause for the product to
exist is 'god' him/her/itself. So whatever happens before and after
the creation of the product is the fault of 'god'...not the fault of
the product....because this 'god' is the initiator. If this 'god'
didn't mess around in the beginning to create the product in the first
place...then this god wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense
anyhow. But then again....a all-knowing, perfect planning, and perfect
designing creator (in which the christians say is their 'god') doesn't
even have to produce anything just to see what it does....because this
'god' already knows that the product it will make will do (in terms of
mechanical actions/movements) exactly what was chosen in advance.
And getting back to what you said..... there's no way that an
all-knowing, perfect planner and perfect designer can 'choose' to not
know something. Otherwise, the entity wouldn't be all-knowing. That's
just self-evident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 06:09:33 AM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504040051.42f661d@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4w%3e.3195$ZV5.1542@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504031334.1cb9c0ba@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<CbR3e.3137$ZV5.617@fed1read05>...
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's
also
the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities
(tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his
free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than
if
He
chose to know everything.
yah.... but if god is 'supposed' to be all-knowing and a perfect
planner/designer...then there's no way that he can 'choose' not to
know 'something'. Because if he 'chose' not to know something...then
obviously he/she/it wouldn't be all-knowing....right? Yes...that's
right.
You're assuming that you can judge the motivations of an infinite
self-conscious entity.
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will....because the product
was not even around when this 'god' knew every single one of the
product's future mechanical actions/movements. And the reason for this
knowledge is because this 'god' chose every single one of those
movements for the product...before the product was even around. If the
product is not yet around...then the only cause for the product to
exist is 'god' him/her/itself. So whatever happens before and after
the creation of the product is the fault of 'god'...not the fault of
the product....because this 'god' is the initiator. If this 'god'
didn't mess around in the beginning to create the product in the first
place...then this god wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense
anyhow. But then again....a all-knowing, perfect planning, and perfect
designing creator (in which the christians say is their 'god') doesn't
even have to produce anything just to see what it does....because this
'god' already knows that the product it will make will do (in terms of
mechanical actions/movements) exactly what was chosen in advance.
And getting back to what you said..... there's no way that an
all-knowing, perfect planner and perfect designer can 'choose' to not
know something. Otherwise, the entity wouldn't be all-knowing. That's
just self-evident.
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 05:26:52 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<uf94e.3443$ZV5.2405@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504040051.42f661d@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4w%3e.3195$ZV5.1542@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504031334.1cb9c0ba@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<CbR3e.3137$ZV5.617@fed1read05>...
There's always many-worlds, the Uncertainty Principle, etc. There's
also
the
possibility (one of the common escape clauses for all-knowing deities
(tm))
that God *chooses* not to know how things will turn out for his
free-will
creations. Presumably because its a lot more interesting and fun than
if
He
chose to know everything.
yah.... but if god is 'supposed' to be all-knowing and a perfect
planner/designer...then there's no way that he can 'choose' not to
know 'something'. Because if he 'chose' not to know something...then
obviously he/she/it wouldn't be all-knowing....right? Yes...that's
right.
You're assuming that you can judge the motivations of an infinite
self-conscious entity.
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will....because the product
was not even around when this 'god' knew every single one of the
product's future mechanical actions/movements. And the reason for this
knowledge is because this 'god' chose every single one of those
movements for the product...before the product was even around. If the
product is not yet around...then the only cause for the product to
exist is 'god' him/her/itself. So whatever happens before and after
the creation of the product is the fault of 'god'...not the fault of
the product....because this 'god' is the initiator. If this 'god'
didn't mess around in the beginning to create the product in the first
place...then this god wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense
anyhow. But then again....a all-knowing, perfect planning, and perfect
designing creator (in which the christians say is their 'god') doesn't
even have to produce anything just to see what it does....because this
'god' already knows that the product it will make will do (in terms of
mechanical actions/movements) exactly what was chosen in advance.
And getting back to what you said..... there's no way that an
all-knowing, perfect planner and perfect designer can 'choose' to not
know something. Otherwise, the entity wouldn't be all-knowing. That's
just self-evident.
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
No need to waste time to argue. The 'mysterious' description is
irrelevant. What is relevant is the fundamental attributes of god....
and I already mentioned that the christians are taught that god is ..
1) all-knowing
2) a perfect planner
3) a perfect designer
That's all we need to begin. And that's all we need to know to show
that the christian teachings are fatally flawed.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 10:09:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 01:29:19 PM |
|
|
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this kind
of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
I never said that it could. The Vatican maintains its own observatory, BTW.
I was responding to the claim that there was a completely illogical issue
concerning God and all that. Logic's been around for thousands of years and
the debate hasn't been held by people with an IQ of 60, or something.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 05:43:48 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 02:25:15 AM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 03:49:32 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<S8M4e.4080$ZV5.1105@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
That's not true. The bible starts with 'in the beginning'. So that was
'THEN'. this is 'NOW'.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 07:56:42 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061249.5d879e2c@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<S8M4e.4080$ZV5.1105@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are
the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
That's not true. The bible starts with 'in the beginning'. So that was
'THEN'. this is 'NOW'.
Only from OUR perspective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 03:21:20 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Oy%4e.14359$ZV5.9772@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061249.5d879e2c@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<S8M4e.4080$ZV5.1105@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious are
the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short, Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
That's not true. The bible starts with 'in the beginning'. So that was
'THEN'. this is 'NOW'.
Only from OUR perspective.
Well...from our perspective...that was 'THEN'. And this is 'NOW'. And
through time....the bible reckons that the christian 'god' interacted
with the product (earth, people etc) in a sequence of events....so
this 'god' doesn't escape 'time'.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 01:42:49 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504070021.14dfda4@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Oy%4e.14359$ZV5.9772@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061249.5d879e2c@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<S8M4e.4080$ZV5.1105@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think
that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue
this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious
are
the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short,
Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the
beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a
movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would
be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and
producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was
made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions
are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum
dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
That's not true. The bible starts with 'in the beginning'. So that was
'THEN'. this is 'NOW'.
Only from OUR perspective.
Well...from our perspective...that was 'THEN'. And this is 'NOW'. And
through time....the bible reckons that the christian 'god' interacted
with the product (earth, people etc) in a sequence of events....so
this 'god' doesn't escape 'time'.
But you're trying to analyze the perspective of God from OUR perspective.
Doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 07:19:18 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<laf5e.21$%c1.13@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504070021.14dfda4@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<Oy%4e.14359$ZV5.9772@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061249.5d879e2c@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<S8M4e.4080$ZV5.1105@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050243.6adb0902@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnd52m5e.5ga.mightymartianca@ministry.of.silly.walks>...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 04:09:33 -0700,
LawsonE <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the Lord, etc. Do you really think
that
these
objections haven't been brought up before? If you want to argue
this
kind of
thing, seek out a Jesuit.
They've been debated for centuries, and to be honest, "mysterious
are
the
ways of the Lord" is about all it amounts to. In short,
Christianity
cannot
tell us very damn much about how the Universe functions.
NOTE...correction below where I inserted the words 'DO NOT'.
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) DO NOT understand a
vital point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the
beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a
movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would
be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and
producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was
made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions
are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum
dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
God is always "now," so there can't be such a thing as a "rerun."
That's not true. The bible starts with 'in the beginning'. So that was
'THEN'. this is 'NOW'.
Only from OUR perspective.
Well...from our perspective...that was 'THEN'. And this is 'NOW'. And
through time....the bible reckons that the christian 'god' interacted
with the product (earth, people etc) in a sequence of events....so
this 'god' doesn't escape 'time'.
But you're trying to analyze the perspective of God from OUR perspective.
Doesn't work.
If the christians are taught that god is all-knowing, and is perfect
planner, and is a perfect designer....then obvious it's in the
christian's perspective...not from god. And anything that they're
taught about 'god' is in the christian's perspective..... THUS nothing
that they're taught should be believed. Right? Well...that's what you
reckon. This makes it even easier than it already is to show that the
christian beliefs are fatally flawed hehehe. Nice one buddy.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rms" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 10:12:22 AM |
|
|
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
04 Apr 2005 01:29:50 PM |
|
|
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
Yep, and other religions in other cultures have other takes on the subject.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
05 Apr 2005 05:41:47 AM |
|
|
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 02:27:22 AM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 04:12:40 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
Not yet...I'll try to find the information to read. Although, I'm
surprised how you should think that I might be setting up strawmen to
be knocked down, when you can clearly see that the only information
I've used is the christians fundamental attributes of the christian
'god', and straight-forward no-thrills logic.
This questionaire is enough to get the christians thinking....just ask
these questions...
1) do you believe that god knows everything? (yes or no)
2) do you believe that god is a perfect planner? (yes or no)
3) do you believe that god is a perfect designer? (yes or no)
Given the above, and considering the condition when god had not yet
created his/her/its 'product (people etc)'....THEN:
4) do you believe that god knew AND PLANNED AND DESIGNED every single
future MECHANICAL action/movement for god's future product? (yes or
no)
If answered 'yes' to question 4), then answer question 5) below:
5) IF god knew AND planned AND designed every single future mechanial
action for his/her/its product BEFORE that product was even created,
THEN who do you think CAUSED those future mechanical actions? ('god'?
or 'the product'?)
There are no tricks to the above questions. They're straight forward,
and chosen to get the christians (or anybody that's wasted their time
in the religious discussions) to think.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
06 Apr 2005 07:58:45 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061312.3ef5a423@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the
christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite
easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never
read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
Not yet...I'll try to find the information to read. Although, I'm
surprised how you should think that I might be setting up strawmen to
be knocked down, when you can clearly see that the only information
I've used is the christians fundamental attributes of the christian
'god', and straight-forward no-thrills logic.
But you have assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.
This questionaire is enough to get the christians thinking....just ask
these questions...
They are apparently as uneducated in their religion as you are.
1) do you believe that god knows everything? (yes or no)
2) do you believe that god is a perfect planner? (yes or no)
3) do you believe that god is a perfect designer? (yes or no)
Given the above, and considering the condition when god had not yet
created his/her/its 'product (people etc)'....THEN:
4) do you believe that god knew AND PLANNED AND DESIGNED every single
future MECHANICAL action/movement for god's future product? (yes or
no)
If answered 'yes' to question 4), then answer question 5) below:
5) IF god knew AND planned AND designed every single future mechanial
action for his/her/its product BEFORE that product was even created,
THEN who do you think CAUSED those future mechanical actions? ('god'?
or 'the product'?)
There are no tricks to the above questions. They're straight forward,
and chosen to get the christians (or anybody that's wasted their time
in the religious discussions) to think.
Assumptions are always the *****. You HAVE made some, you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 06:11:20 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<IA%4e.14471$ZV5.1673@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061312.3ef5a423@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the
christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this? The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite
easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never
read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
Not yet...I'll try to find the information to read. Although, I'm
surprised how you should think that I might be setting up strawmen to
be knocked down, when you can clearly see that the only information
I've used is the christians fundamental attributes of the christian
'god', and straight-forward no-thrills logic.
But you have assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.
Yeah...but the assumptions are naturally obvious ones. We both assume
that we both understand the meaning of your sentence ... 'but you have
assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.'
Otherwise, we might as well not even be talking to each other...right?
This questionaire is enough to get the christians thinking....just ask
these questions...
They are apparently as uneducated in their religion as you are.
That's nonsense. Pretty weird how you don't even know us, and you try
to rate our level of education.
1) do you believe that god knows everything? (yes or no)
2) do you believe that god is a perfect planner? (yes or no)
3) do you believe that god is a perfect designer? (yes or no)
Given the above, and considering the condition when god had not yet
created his/her/its 'product (people etc)'....THEN:
4) do you believe that god knew AND PLANNED AND DESIGNED every single
future MECHANICAL action/movement for god's future product? (yes or
no)
If answered 'yes' to question 4), then answer question 5) below:
5) IF god knew AND planned AND designed every single future mechanial
action for his/her/its product BEFORE that product was even created,
THEN who do you think CAUSED those future mechanical actions? ('god'?
or 'the product'?)
There are no tricks to the above questions. They're straight forward,
and chosen to get the christians (or anybody that's wasted their time
in the religious discussions) to think.
Assumptions are always the *****. You HAVE made some, you know.
Of course I have assumptions. Without assumptions, logic, and
definitions, we might as well not even communicate with each other.
Would you like to pick out the assumptions that you have a problem
with? And if you want to be helpful, then would you help to add a few
extra details to the above questionaire until YOU believe that the
content is rock solid (according to you)?
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 01:49:06 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504070311.363db148@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<IA%4e.14471$ZV5.1673@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061312.3ef5a423@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the
christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the
product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this?
The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an
all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the
beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a
movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would
be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and
producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was
made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions
are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum
dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite
easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never
read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
Not yet...I'll try to find the information to read. Although, I'm
surprised how you should think that I might be setting up strawmen to
be knocked down, when you can clearly see that the only information
I've used is the christians fundamental attributes of the christian
'god', and straight-forward no-thrills logic.
But you have assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.
Yeah...but the assumptions are naturally obvious ones. We both assume
that we both understand the meaning of your sentence ... 'but you have
assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.'
Otherwise, we might as well not even be talking to each other...right?
This questionaire is enough to get the christians thinking....just ask
these questions...
They are apparently as uneducated in their religion as you are.
That's nonsense. Pretty weird how you don't even know us, and you try
to rate our level of education.
1) do you believe that god knows everything? (yes or no)
2) do you believe that god is a perfect planner? (yes or no)
3) do you believe that god is a perfect designer? (yes or no)
Given the above, and considering the condition when god had not yet
created his/her/its 'product (people etc)'....THEN:
4) do you believe that god knew AND PLANNED AND DESIGNED every single
future MECHANICAL action/movement for god's future product? (yes or
no)
If answered 'yes' to question 4), then answer question 5) below:
5) IF god knew AND planned AND designed every single future mechanial
action for his/her/its product BEFORE that product was even created,
THEN who do you think CAUSED those future mechanical actions? ('god'?
or 'the product'?)
There are no tricks to the above questions. They're straight forward,
and chosen to get the christians (or anybody that's wasted their time
in the religious discussions) to think.
Assumptions are always the *****. You HAVE made some, you know.
Of course I have assumptions. Without assumptions, logic, and
definitions, we might as well not even communicate with each other.
Sure, but your assumptions may not be valid in the context of a specific
religion, since you're not of that religion. The people who agree with you,
while they may practice that religion, may not be acquainted with the deeper
analysis that has been done concerning that religion by the heavy thinkers
of that tradition.
Would you like to pick out the assumptions that you have a problem
with? And if you want to be helpful, then would you help to add a few
extra details to the above questionaire until YOU believe that the
content is rock solid (according to you)?
Not my place. *I* don't accept a Christain deity. I'm merely pointing out
that your arguments likely don't hold up against the in-depth analysis done
by people like Acquinas, just as anti-Moslem arguments done by a
non-believer who hasn't read the Islamic scholar's take on things, dont
really refute the Islamic world-view.
LIkewise with various Buddhist, Hindu, etc world-views.
Just about any religion that's been around for more than a few years has
become 100% self-consistent within the confines of what is accepted doctrine
for that religion. That's why you can't argue logically with a well-educated
believer and expect to "win" --if they really know their religion, they know
all the arguments already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 07:15:36 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<dgf5e.33$%c1.32@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504070311.363db148@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<IA%4e.14471$ZV5.1673@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061312.3ef5a423@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the
christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning, and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the
product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this?
The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an
all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the
beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god to
create a future product, where observations of this future product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a
movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to say
that...in god's view, the observation of god's future product would
be
nothing more than to watch a movie re-run, where god is the
script-writer, choreographer, director, camera-man, and
producer..all
bundled together into one?
Since the observation of the product is watching a movie that was
made
by god long before the product was even made....then obviously the
product wouldn't have any free-will. Because the product's actions
are
merely god's own actions. Therefore, judgement of the product would
simply be the judgement of god him/her/itself.
That's why a lot of those religious scholars are a bunch of dum
dums.
They failed to see the obvious, so wasted their time talking about
irrelevant stuff.
Have you read Aquinas's response to this line of thinking? It's quite
easy
to boast that you have refuted someone's arguments when you have never
read
the arguments. Are you sure that you're not setting up strawmen to be
knocked down?
Not yet...I'll try to find the information to read. Although, I'm
surprised how you should think that I might be setting up strawmen to
be knocked down, when you can clearly see that the only information
I've used is the christians fundamental attributes of the christian
'god', and straight-forward no-thrills logic.
But you have assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.
Yeah...but the assumptions are naturally obvious ones. We both assume
that we both understand the meaning of your sentence ... 'but you have
assumptions inherent in your analysis of the attributes.'
Otherwise, we might as well not even be talking to each other...right?
This questionaire is enough to get the christians thinking....just ask
these questions...
They are apparently as uneducated in their religion as you are.
That's nonsense. Pretty weird how you don't even know us, and you try
to rate our level of education.
1) do you believe that god knows everything? (yes or no)
2) do you believe that god is a perfect planner? (yes or no)
3) do you believe that god is a perfect designer? (yes or no)
Given the above, and considering the condition when god had not yet
created his/her/its 'product (people etc)'....THEN:
4) do you believe that god knew AND PLANNED AND DESIGNED every single
future MECHANICAL action/movement for god's future product? (yes or
no)
If answered 'yes' to question 4), then answer question 5) below:
5) IF god knew AND planned AND designed every single future mechanial
action for his/her/its product BEFORE that product was even created,
THEN who do you think CAUSED those future mechanical actions? ('god'?
or 'the product'?)
There are no tricks to the above questions. They're straight forward,
and chosen to get the christians (or anybody that's wasted their time
in the religious discussions) to think.
Assumptions are always the *****. You HAVE made some, you know.
Of course I have assumptions. Without assumptions, logic, and
definitions, we might as well not even communicate with each other.
Sure, but your assumptions may not be valid in the context of a specific
religion, since you're not of that religion. The people who agree with you,
while they may practice that religion, may not be acquainted with the deeper
analysis that has been done concerning that religion by the heavy thinkers
of that tradition.
Oh ... my assumptions are 100 percent valid within the context of the
christian religion alright. I'm playing on their turf....on their
playing field. What more do you want? I simply ask some questions to
be answered .. one at a time.
I ask the christians ... 'do you think that god knows everything?'
I then ask 'do you think that god is a perfect planner?'
'do you think that god is a perfect designer?'
How much more bloody simple can the above questions get? ... Unless
you have no basic comprehension of definitions and language....or
unless you're a moron or something.
Then...given the above, how much more bloody simple can we get by
asking...'before god's product was around/created, do you believe that
every FUTURE MECHANICAL ACTION for the product-yet-to-be-made was
already known and determined by god?'
Can't get much more simple than that.
Finally....the last question ... very simple is... 'Before the product
was made, and if you believe that god knew and planned perfectly every
single future mechanical action for the product....WHO was responsible
for knowing and determining the product's mechanical actions...before
the product was even made?'
Would you like to pick out the assumptions that you have a problem
with? And if you want to be helpful, then would you help to add a few
extra details to the above questionaire until YOU believe that the
content is rock solid (according to you)?
Not my place. *I* don't accept a Christain deity. I'm merely pointing out
So you're saying that you don't qualify to add anything? I don't
accept a christian deity either.
that your arguments likely don't hold up against the in-depth analysis done
by people like Acquinas, just as anti-Moslem arguments done by a
Actually.... I'm the other way around. I'm going to take a guess right
now that Acquinas didn't see obvious root problem in the christian
teachings. Also...it's not me that the christians should argue
against. They really need to argue with themselves....because I didn't
present anything new. I only ask them the obvious. That is...if the
product isn't even around yet to make any decisions or move around,
THEN WHO is responsible for the future product's mechanical
actions/movements? (given that god was around, but the product was not
yet around to do anything at all...and given that god is ALL-KNOWING,
PERFECT PLANNING, and PERFECT DESIGNING).
I want to add one more thing too. If you think that this obvious
argument doesn't hold up against the analysis performed by Acquinas,
then please point out at least one fault. You've studied his analysis
in detail...right?
I've been trying to find the relevant links to what Acquinas has to
say about this....you got any reliable online references? I want to
check it out.
non-believer who hasn't read the Islamic scholar's take on things, dont
really refute the Islamic world-view.
LIkewise with various Buddhist, Hindu, etc world-views.
Just about any religion that's been around for more than a few years has
become 100% self-consistent within the confines of what is accepted doctrine
for that religion. That's why you can't argue logically with a well-educated
believer and expect to "win" --if they really know their religion, they know
all the arguments already.
100 percent self consistent? Yeah ... righhHHHT! I show in the above
the opposite.....that the christian teachings is fatally flawed at the
root.... 100 percent contradictory.
Actually.... when a well educated believer is faced with the above
questions, they either say that they don't know, OR they do not
answer, OR they JUMP the GUN to talk about the product "AFTER" it's
been made (which is irrelevant). In the above, we focus on god's
situation "BEFORE" ANY product is even made......and that's exactly
where the christian teachings fall to pieces...before the product is
even created.
The whole thing about predetermined actions in a product created by an
all-knowing, perfect planning and perfect designing entity is
completely obvious. Some brave christians (like some of my friends)
face up to it, and say 'yeah...you're right...I never thought of it
like that before', and then they go to ask the same thing to every
church minister they come across...but they never get a satisfactory
explanation from the ministers....because the ministers refuse to deal
with the problem. Why do some of my friends keep asking the question?
It's because they realise there's an obvious problem there.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science |
07 Apr 2005 09:06:40 PM |
|
|
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504071615.c3a4ccd@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<dgf5e.33$%c1.32@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504070311.363db148@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<IA%4e.14471$ZV5.1673@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504061312.3ef5a423@posting.google.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<QaM4e.4081$ZV5.2334@fed1read05>...
"Kenny Leong" <kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29154d7c.0504050241.596671c6@posting.google.com...
"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:<qPc4e.18588$DW.5293@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
You're wrong. I'm assuming that you can understand that the
christians
are taught that their 'god' is all-knowing, perfect planning,
and
perfect designing, and that you can then understand that the
product
made by such an entity cannot have free-will
You assume that religious scholars haven't considered this?
The
Church
dealt with the issue of Free Will in the presence of an
all-knowing,
all-powerful God long ago, and in excruciating detail. Aquinas
in
particular, and Dante refers to it in his epic poems.
rms
I reckon that you (and those religious scholars) understand a
vital
point....and this point is to consider the very basics.
The very basics...meaning that you start with 'god' at the
beginning.
Then you ask yourself....if this god is a all-knowing, and
perfect
planner, and perfect designer, then is it possible for this god
to
create a future product, where observations of this future
product
would be DIFFERENT than the situation where 'god' is watching a
movie
re-run?
That is ... if the product is not yet made, then is it true to
say
that...in god | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
