Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A rock is unconfused about your intentions to apply unintentionally to its journey down the hill.

My flip phone is also confused as to whether it was a product of intentionality or not, just as confused as the rock.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 09:42 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. If you saying it can't be exhibited, then you can't claim something was "unintentional, or use it as a working hypothesis, or as a default position. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You need to read what people actually write. Please quote me where I make a claim of "unintentionality". I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

Without evidence of intentionality, it cannot be assumed. There is no such property as "unintentionality" - intentionality is either present or not.

Notice the or as a "working hypothesis".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  You need to read what people actually write. Please quote me where I make a claim of "unintentionality". I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

Without evidence of intentionality, it cannot be assumed. There is no such property as "unintentionality" - intentionality is either present or not.

Notice the or as a "working hypothesis".

The working hypothesis does not include that for which there is no evidence. Why is that confusing to you?

A hypothesis is not a belief or a claim.

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
10-08-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  A rock is unconfused about your intentions to apply unintentionally to its journey down the hill.

My flip phone is also confused as to whether it was a product of intentionality or not, just as confused as the rock.

You can't be this fucking stupid. I refuse to believe anyone is this dumb.

Phone = designed by humans (we've got the blueprints and the descriptions of purpose/intentions)

Rock = a fucking rock made of mineral(s) that formed as a result of natural processes, no intentionality or unintentinality required.

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
10-08-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My flip phone is also confused as to whether it was a product of intentionality or not, just as confused as the rock.

You can't be this fucking stupid. I refuse to believe anyone is this dumb.

Phone = designed by humans (we've got the blueprints and the descriptions of purpose/intentions)

Rock = a fucking rock made of mineral(s) that formed as a result of natural processes, no intentionality or unintentinality required.

You're the one that made the stupid appeal to the rock's confusion as some sort of argument. Mines was just a means of turning that stupidity back on you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You can't be this fucking stupid. I refuse to believe anyone is this dumb.

Phone = designed by humans (we've got the blueprints and the descriptions of purpose/intentions)

Rock = a fucking rock made of mineral(s) that formed as a result of natural processes, no intentionality or unintentinality required.

You're the one that made the stupid appeal to the rock's confusion as some sort of argument. Mines was just a means of turning that stupidity back on you.

Holy shit. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

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
10-08-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Notice the or as a "working hypothesis".

The working hypothesis does not include that for which there is no evidence. Why is that confusing to you?

A hypothesis is not a belief or a claim.

Oh for fuck's sake, if unintentionality cannot be exhibited it cannot be used as a working hypothesis, duh.

(To quote you: "unintentionality" is not a thing that can be exhibited.")
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  The working hypothesis does not include that for which there is no evidence. Why is that confusing to you?

A hypothesis is not a belief or a claim.

Oh for fuck's sake, if unintentionality cannot be exhibited it cannot be used as a working hypothesis.

To quote you: "unintentionality" is not a thing that can be exhibited."

Prove the rock is unconfused by your example Drinking Beverage I will wait

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
10-08-2015, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 10:03 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
I get that intentionality argument a lot in evolution discussions in the real world and online, and they baffle me. (The "blind watchmaker" argument, in its myriad variations.)

Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between natural events following the laws of physics (which determine chemistry, and therefore biology) and that which we artificially sculpt by manipulating our understanding of those laws?

So, back to Tomasia's argument, it should be trivial to show artificiality (and therefore intentionality), by the same mechanism... what part of the universe do you see which seems to violate the natural path of physics, and thereby implies a guiding will to empower?

It's really very simple. Show that something cannot happen by the laws of physics naturally, and we have evidence of an intentional action. Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are attempts to do this; unfortunately for their proponents, they're child's play to debunk, and rely heavily on imaginary "well it looks like" (unless you really look closely at the physics/chemistry/biology of it) suppositions, which is all I see out of Tomasia on this issue, as well.

Trying to turn the tables by saying we have to demonstrate "unintentionality" (whateverthefuck that is) as anything other than the default setting is to try to shift the burden of proof. If you want me to look at something that appears to be artificial, you need to show why. The wristwatch, for instance, would be a good way. Where's the universe's watch?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
10-08-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 09:54 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I get that intentionality argument a lot in evolution discussions in the real world and online, and they baffle me. (The "blind watchmaker" argument, in its myriad variations.)

Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between natural events following the laws of physics (which determine chemistry, and therefore biology) and that which we artificially sculpt by manipulating our understanding of those laws?

So, back to Tomasia's argument, it should be trivial to show artificiality (and therefore intentionality), by the same mechanism... what part of the universe do you see which seems to violate the natural path of physics, and thereby implies a guiding will to empower?

It's really very simple. Show that something cannot happen by the laws of physics naturally, and we have evidence of an intentional action. Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are attempts to do this; unfortunately for their proponents, they're child's play to debunk, and rely heaving on imaginary "well it looks like" (unless you really look closely at the physics/chemistry/biology of it) suppositions, which is all I see out of Tomasia on this issue, as well.

Trying to turn the tables by saying we have to demonstrate "unintentionality" (whateverthefuck that is) as anything other than the default setting is to try to shift the burden of proof. If you want me to look at something that appears to be artificial, you need to show why. The wristwatch, for instance, would be a good way. Where's the universe's watch?

It always seems to boil down to an argument from ignorance with theists.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: