If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

fluke
noun
unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.
"their triumph was no fluke"
synonyms: chance, coincidence, accident

[Image: fluke.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-06-2015, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2015 04:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

He most certainly does not. Recall that by his own admission Tommy does not even comprehend how 2+2=4 could not be objectively true and how 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 in different contexts. But let me pick up the intelligent design baton and run with it for a bit because Tommy can't even grasp it let alone run with it. If I were to argue for intelligent design I would focus on randomness. Instead of showing me some fucking rock garden and asking "How could this not be designed?" I would ask "Here is a completely random number sequence. How could this not be the result of some intelligent design?" I mean we know how to design a fucking rock garden but we do not know how to generate a completely random number sequence. (We may yet be able to do this with quantum computing but it's still an open question.) If I were arguing for ID I would focus on the transcendental numbers. How in the fuck do we find these numbers which as far as we can tell are a completely random sequence appear over and over in nature? I mean without them we'd be completely fucking lost. Them's God's numbers. Dunno if any ID arguments take this tack but that's how I'd roll.

But this is all orthogonal to Tommy's arguments and lost on Tommy because by his own admission he don't even have a basic understanding of numbers let alone the transcendentals.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-06-2015, 04:52 PM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 10:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because you don't understand what "random" means. Drinking Beverage

He most certainly does not. Recall that by his own admission Tommy does not even comprehend how 2+2=4 could not be objectively true and how 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 in different contexts. But let me pick up the intelligent design baton and run with it for a bit because Tommy can't even grasp it let alone run with it. If I were to argue for intelligent design I would focus on randomness. Instead of showing me some fucking rock garden and asking "How could this not be designed?" I would ask "Here is a completely random number sequence. How could this not be the result of some intelligent design?" I mean we know how to design a fucking rock garden but we do not know how to generate a completely random number sequence. (We may yet be able to do this with quantum computing but it's still an open question.) If I were arguing for ID I would focus on the transcendental numbers. How in the fuck do we find these numbers which as far as we can tell are a completely random sequence appear over and over in nature? I mean without them we'd be completely fucking lost. Them's God's numbers. Dunno if any ID arguments take this tack but that's how I'd roll.

But this is all orthogonal to Tommy's arguments and lost on Tommy because by his own admission he don't even have a basic understanding of numbers let alone the transcendentals.

The irony of intelligent design, is the lack of intelligence from its proponents.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 03:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What it takes to convince you of something, is pointless. You being convinced of something as true, doesn't tell me anything about whether or not it is or isn't true

Yet, you being convinced that something is true, tells you whether it is or isn’t true. Though I agree. You believing that ontological naturalism is true, that we’re just a fluke, doesn’t tell me anything about whether this is true or not.

Quote:We can and do observe the forces of nature working. And they are independently verifiable so as to suggest that they are externally true. Your god is only internally true, making it a figment of your imagination.

We observe some natural forces working, some that we might know a good deal about, and some that we know very little about. We don’t particularly know if we’re the product of a fluke or not, yet some of us believe that we are. And we might believe we hold a convincing argument for this, but its just as empty as any teleological claim. If a teleological view of reality is a figment of one’s imagination, so is a fluke. We know that fluke occurrences occur all the time in nature, therefore we conclude that nature itself is just one big fluke, or so your reasoning goes. We know somethings are product of intentionality, a vase found on mars, would be one we assume was intentionally created. We know that goals are intentional, that they don’t exist without intentionality. Someone such as yourself would have to continuously argue that any seeming sense of a goal, was not a goal, but just a fluke. That the way in which the cosmos comes to know itself was not a goal, but a fluke, that our perceptions of good and evil, that our desire to be good, that sense of light and darkness, of purity and corruption, or wholeness of moral obligations, a desire for truth, was not a goal but a fluke, an illusion perhaps. And it’s just a matter if the sum total for the case of a fluke holds up, when in reality those who imagine it’s fluke often need to observe life with as little exposure to it as possible.

Quote:I don't respect you, at all. Because you are a dishonest and lying moron. You've never given me a reason to respect you.

You don’t have to respect me, just like I don’t particularly respect you. But don’t be one of those little pussies that get all courageous and says shit to people online, that you wouldn’t say if they were to visit you in person. The rule here is that you should extend the same level of courtesy to some stranger online, as you would a stranger in real life as well, or else you’re just a hypocrite and a coward. I don’t think that’s too much to ask is it? Nor does it require you to respect me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2015 05:15 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Recall that by his own admission Tommy does not even comprehend how 2+2=4 could not be objectively true and how 2+2=10 or 2+2=11 in different contexts.

You mean your inability to distinguish between absolute and objective. A truth dependent on context doesn't negate objectivitety, it's just negates that truth being absolute. This is the basic distinction between moral realism (objective morality) and moral absolutism, something not particularly recognized by you.

Quote:If I were arguing for ID I would focus on the transcendental numbers. How in the fuck do we find these numbers which as far as we can tell are a completely random sequence appear over and over in nature? I mean without them we'd be completely fucking lost. Them's God's numbers. Dunno if any ID arguments take this tack but that's how I'd roll.

But this is all orthogonal to Tommy's arguments and lost on Tommy because by his own admission he don't even have a basic understanding of numbers let alone the transcendentals.

Yes, that would be entirely lost on me. I can't say it particularly interests me either, lol. Several months ago I wouldn't be appealing to matter organizing itself in such a way to produce conscious creatures either, but with some influence from some atheists like Tom Stoppard, and Thomas Nagel, led me to reconsider, and it makes things a bit more simple to argue as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 05:22 PM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 04:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 03:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What it takes to convince you of something, is pointless. You being convinced of something as true, doesn't tell me anything about whether or not it is or isn't true

Yet, you being convinced that something is true, tells you whether it is or isn’t true. Though I agree. You believing that ontological naturalism is true, that we’re just a fluke, doesn’t tell me anything about whether this is true or not.

Quote:We can and do observe the forces of nature working. And they are independently verifiable so as to suggest that they are externally true. Your god is only internally true, making it a figment of your imagination.

We observe some natural forces working, some that we might know a good deal about, and some that we know very little about. We don’t particularly know if we’re the product of a fluke or not, yet some of us believe that we are. And we might believe we hold a convincing argument for this, but its just as empty as any teleological claim. If a teleological view of reality is a figment of one’s imagination, so is a fluke. We know that fluke occurrences occur all the time in nature, therefore we conclude that nature itself is just one big fluke, or so your reasoning goes. We know somethings are product of intentionality, a vase found on mars, would be one we assume was intentionally created. We know that goals are intentional, that they don’t exist without intentionality. Someone such as yourself would have to continuously argue that any seeming sense of a goal, was not a goal, but just a fluke. That the way in which the cosmos comes to know itself was not a goal, but a fluke, that our perceptions of good and evil, that our desire to be good, that sense of light and darkness, of purity and corruption, or wholeness of moral obligations, a desire for truth, was not a goal but a fluke, an illusion perhaps. And it’s just a matter if the sum total for the case of a fluke holds up, when in reality those who imagine it’s fluke often need to observe life with as little exposure to it as possible.

Quote:I don't respect you, at all. Because you are a dishonest and lying moron. You've never given me a reason to respect you.

You don’t have to respect me, just like I don’t particularly respect you. But don’t be one of those little pussies that get all courageous and says shit to people online, that you wouldn’t say if they were to visit you in person. The rule here is that you should extend the same level of courtesy to some stranger online, as you would a stranger in real life as well, or else you’re just a hypocrite and a coward. I don’t think that’s too much to ask is it? Nor does it require you to respect me.

I'm so glad I have your permission to not respect you, you dishonest dumbass.

(As a side note, if I were to encounter a jackass like yourself on the street with your high-horse preaching, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2015 05:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 05:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But this is all orthogonal to Tommy's arguments and lost on Tommy because by his own admission he don't even have a basic understanding of numbers let alone the transcendentals.

Yes, that would be entirely lost on me. I can't say it particularly interests me either, lol.

Euler has already shown us one face of God.
[Image: euler2-2.jpg]
... ah fuck me, you ain't even heard of Euler have you? Let alone can recognize God when you see it.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 05:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  (As a side note, if I were to encounter a jackass like yourself on the street with your high-horse preaching, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself)

No, you wouldn't. You don't even know me. You wouldn't tell me to fuck off, anymore so than you would any random imposing looking stranger peddling the same high-horse shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 05:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2015 05:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  (As a side note, if I were to encounter a jackass like yourself on the street with your high-horse preaching, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself)

No, you wouldn't. You don't even know me. You wouldn't tell me to fuck off, anymore so than you would any random imposing looking stranger peddling the same high-horse shit. If he looked scary enough, you'd likely shit in your pants before you tell him to fuck off.

"You don't even know me."

But you know me? You are fucking joke.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(16-06-2015 05:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But you know me? You are fucking joke.

Of course I do, you're a sweet chubby looking young white dude, a liberal minded adjunct at UConn. Who ranks high on the list of kids you'd take their lunch money from.

You can't pretend, after you exposed yourself already to such as an extent, lol. If I didn't see you I'd want to punch you in the face, after seeing you I just want to pinch your cheeks. So don't act all tough, it's not you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: