How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 06:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your name should be Whiskeyeatsdicks.....cause all the experts say you're a cocksucker.

Blowjob,
I just can't imagine what YOU of all people have against cocksuckers.
Is that a bad thing where you come from ?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...Cocksucker

See definition 2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 04:35 AM)One Above All pdateline='1412246158' Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 03:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Fucking hell but you are tedious.

Quite. I pointed out special pleading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of the thread. OP said his/her claim wasn't special pleading, since he/she wasn't suggesting an uncreated creator. Surprise surprise, he/she was.
Drinking Beverage

You're both champs for trying this conversation. You two & everyone else wbo attempts this madness.

Drinks all around AND on the house!!!

I wont tackle this numbnutz but i'll bartend!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 04:35 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 03:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Fucking hell but you are tedious.

Quite. I pointed out special pleading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of the thread. OP said his/her claim wasn't special pleading, since he/she wasn't suggesting an uncreated creator. Surprise surprise, he/she was.
Drinking Beverage

Chas is the one who suggested the notion of the first intellect not me. Just because I comment on something he introduces to the thread doesn't mean I endorse it.

Reality contains intellects....we are evidence of that. I believe reality has always existed....something your hero Sagan seems to recognize as plausible. If this is true then reality may have always contained intellects. No need for a "first intellect" but since Chas suggested it and then asked a question about it, you can't go on to cry "OH....THERE IT IS...THE THEIST MADE THE SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY"....just because I responded to his question....with a maybe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:04 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 10:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Chas is the one who suggested the notion of the first intellect not me. Just because I comment on something he introduces to the thread doesn't mean I endorse it.
That's about as fucking dishonest a person can get seeing as how we know from past conversations you absolutely do believe this. You don't get to debate in a conversational vacuum where prior knowledge of your views is not taken into consideration.
You decided to take a scientific finding, deliberately or accidentally interpret it wrong, and then attach it to a completely different topic then what the findings involve to provide legitimacy for a superstitious view you already hold. You are working from a conclusion and not too a conclusion and fuck you for doing that. Your god of the gaps nonsense and special pleading are fucking tedious, and that you hide behind word games to avoid dealing with criticism of your honestly held views is fucking cowardly.


(02-10-2014 10:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Reality contains intellects....we are evidence of that. I believe reality has always existed.... If this is true then reality may have always contained intellects.

Reality contains fingers....we are evidence of that. I believe reality has always existed.... If this is true then reality may have always contained fingers.

You are fucking stupid and it should honestly make you feel worse then it probably does.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(03-10-2014 12:04 AM)WhiskeyDickeater Wrote:  Reality contains fingers....we are evidence of that. I believe reality has always existed.... If this is true then reality may have always contained fingers.

If eternalism is correct then reality has always contained fingers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 03:25 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
At work. (Again...)

Was working up to a post.... However, since the conversation (Words being podted at lest) is not actually going any where. .........

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 10:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 04:35 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Quite. I pointed out special pleading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of the thread. OP said his/her claim wasn't special pleading, since he/she wasn't suggesting an uncreated creator. Surprise surprise, he/she was.
Drinking Beverage

Chas is the one who suggested the notion of the first intellect not me. Just because I comment on something he introduces to the thread doesn't mean I endorse it.

Reality contains intellects....we are evidence of that. I believe reality has always existed....something your hero Sagan seems to recognize as plausible. If this is true then reality may have always contained intellects. No need for a "first intellect" but since Chas suggested it and then asked a question about it, you can't go on to cry "OH....THERE IT IS...THE THEIST MADE THE SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY"....just because I responded to his question....with a maybe.

If I did it was to point out the circularity of your argument. Either there is a first or there is infinite regress.
We know that humans have not always existed, so human intellect has not always existed.

If human intellect was not natural, but was created by another intellect, all that does is move the problem of the first intellect elsewhere and elsewhen. And there is no evidence that human intellect is not a product of evolution. In fact, by studying other animals, we see gradations of mental power that looks exactly like it is the product of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
03-10-2014, 04:01 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 10:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why should we? The conditions on earth today are completely different than the conditions when life started.

You are wrong from the get-go.

You don't know that life started on earth. You don't know how life started. You have no justification for claiming that we don't observe life coming into existence today because cause conditions are different. You are simply hand waving away something you can't explain.

I have every justification for that claim. We know that when life first appeared on earth, conditions were very different.

And if life didn't start on earth, then why would we expect to see it created at all?
Your arguments are nonsense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-10-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(02-10-2014 10:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 03:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  First off that was not a troll.

Whiskeydicker.....yes it was a troll.

I didn't bother to read the rest of what you wrote cause I don't waste my time with trolls. When you can learn to stop being such an ass...maybe we can have a fruitful discussion.

Pointing out that you are wrong according to the experts in the field you are currently trying to molest into some nonexistent conclusion and should thus shut the fuck up is not a troll. Pointing out multiple times that you are creating conclusions not supported by the evidence is not a troll. Pointing out multiple times that Occam's Razor makes your argument it's bitch is not a troll.

Trolling is to provoke an emotional response, to make the person agitated or angry. I couldn't care less about your emotions, if you get angry from being publicly and repeatedly shown to be a fucking idiot then that's just a bonus for me it's not the intent. I don't want you angry, I want you to fuck off and take your stupid with you, you could be so happy you piss rainbows for all I care as long as you stop polluting this forum.

Now however this :
(01-10-2014 06:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your name should be Whiskeyeatsdicks.....cause all the experts say you're a cocksucker.
...serves a single function. There is no argument, there is not content, no objection to a point raised, there is definitely no wit to be had here. The only function it serves....is to illicit an emotion response. That right there is a textbook (failed) trolling. But you know what princess? I still read and address your fucking points because I'm not a petulant little bitch that requires petty little niceties (which you have not earned Mr. -40) to carry on a damn argument.
Your little "I'm not gonna read your posts cause your mean" is bullshit. There are a good half a dozen points I made that you avoided BEFORE you had your little blow up. You're not making a moral stand, you are just a chicken shit.

Also starting a post by calling me "Whiskeydicker" then demanding I be nice to you is hilariously hypocritical but I want to be clear on something. You do not deserve better treatment. You want me to be nicer fine, I want you to get your rep above Minus fucking 40. I want you to stop making posts displaying your own ignorance like it's a shiny new hat. I want you to stop making threads and posts where you deliberately misrepresent scientific findings to fit your preconceived world view. I want you to stop debating in a dishonest way pretending you don't hold the views we already know you do from past conversations.
When you do this we will be on equal ground until then you are my moral and intellectual inferior and you will be treated like it. My respect is earned, I don't give it for free to anyone least of all people with your history of dishonesty.

But seeing as how dealing with profanity and arguments at the same time is a thing too complicated for you, here are some points free of insults that you can try to address finally.

1.) Your claims are not backed up by those of the field you are making claims about, in fact they say the opposite, almost universally. This fabricated interpretation was the foundation of your argument and, being fabricated means your conclusions are unsupported and can be thus dismissed until actual evidence arrives.

2.) Many of your arguments are simple word games and this is made obvious by the fact we can replace words, get the exact same accuracy of information, yet your conclusion becomes untenable. Example:
Quote:"We have only witnessed life coming from Intellects, therefor it is not unreasonable to believe that all current life could have come from an intellect."
However if we take the first usage of intellect and replace it with Human action..
Quote:"We have only witnessed life coming from human action..."
that part is just as factually accurate but it utterly ruins your conclusion because:
Quote:We have only witnessed life coming from human action, therefor it is not unreasonable to believe that all current life could have come from an intellect."
is a complete non sequitur and:
Quote:We have only witnessed life coming from human action, therefor it is not unreasonable to believe that all current life could have come from human action."
is obviously historically absurd. You could have used human action, technology, or even a combination of biologically housed information and advanced technology but you did not. You picked the one word that fit your preconceived conclusion and was so vague that it required no commitment from you at all. There are plenty of examples of this, nearly all of your argument in fact. They are word games, and they don't fly here.

3.) Occam's Razor makes your argument the absolute least likely argument and Abiogenisis the most likely. We understand chemistry and we understand biology all we have to do is explain how we go from one to the other. On your side of the argument you have to explain how an intelligence created life by a different process, what are the properties of the process, it's functions and materials, then you have to explain where that intellect came from, you don't even know how many previous intellects there could have been, how they came to be so forth and so on.
We could never reproduce Abiogenisis and could go on to create a multitude of new synthetic life forms and your explanation would STILL require the most assumptions and be the least likely of the two.


There you go. Three solid objections to your "argument" off the top of my head and I didn't swear once. Now lets see if you address them HONESTLY or whine like a pathetic little bitch.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
03-10-2014, 05:31 AM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(03-10-2014 04:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 10:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You don't know that life started on earth. You don't know how life started. You have no justification for claiming that we don't observe life coming into existence today because cause conditions are different. You are simply hand waving away something you can't explain.

I have every justification for that claim. We know that when life first appeared on earth, conditions were very different.

And if life didn't start on earth, then why would we expect to see it created at all?
Your arguments are nonsense.
is this the evidence ? Smartass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%8...experiment
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: