The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

[Write4U]

Thought you were kidding. Saw the trailer. Will check on it.

Give it a chance, the dialogue is profound, IMO.

 

[BIGFOOT]

Question begging of the highest order. There is zero support for what you assume, other than your obvious desire for it to be so.
Furthermore, applying what one considers to be common sense is not the same as thinking critically about something, and you need to do the latter rather than rely on the former.

And if you want to deflect the argument onto one of semantics around "intelligence" then you are also missing the point to a large extent in that, whether there intelligent or not, you are advocating a Designer.
So you tell me how you want "intelligence" means in the context you are using it, and while you're at it, do the same for "design" so that we can avoid going through any further attempts to evade.
Again the analogy makes the assumption of design.
As a means of explaining your position, fair enough, but it is already understood. The issue is that it is unsupported by anything other than unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, appeals to common sense etc.
Do you mean "dabbling"?
Scientists as people are as vulnerable to passions, emotions and every other gamut of human experience as the next person.
Science is not.
Do not equate the two. Whether scientists, as people, dabble in alchemy, ghost hunting, witch craft, religion, rugby, cricket or soccer has no bearing on the actual process of science, although it may well inform their focus. This is why peer review is also so important, to weed out the bias, the errors, the emotion.
Science does not invade religion other than where religion makes scientific claims, or tries to rely on scientific claims to support the religious position, such as ID does.
That is when the rugby players invite the soccer players on the pitch to play soccer.
So if all Zargs are Xeegs, and all Xeegs are Yarps, then all Zargs are Yarps.
This is logical.
How is it scientific? How is it testable?
This is merely an example of logic at work on abstract notions. There is nothing scientific about it... no means of following the scientific method.
So beg to differ all you want, but while science uses logic, and has its foundation in logic, not everything that is logical is scientific.
This is, ironically, a logical fallacy on your part: affirming the consequent.
Logic is a method that of reasoning, yes. Science is a method of applying that logic to observations of the universe. Where there is no observation, such as mere abstracts, then there is no science but there is still logic.
And you are arguing a strawman... no one wants to create a boundary where none exist, but we do have to be mindful of where there is an inherent boundary, and to ignore it will result in meaningless conclusions based on fallacies.
The only problem in that regard is you seeing a tree and claiming the existence of a forest.

Question begging of the highest order.

So, you want evidence for Highest Order? And what have you scientists been telling us? Or have you been lying?

“The observed values of the physical and cosmological quantities, are not equally probable. (No chance) But that they take on values, restricted by the requirement that there exists sites in the universe, where carbon based life can exist, and the requirement that the universe is old enough to already have done so”. (See; John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle )

; “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order!!)but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order) and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job……………If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanism that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of Intelligent Design behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? ( See Dr Paul Davies Super Force: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, pp 235-236)

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming”( See Freeman Dyson Disturbing the Universe, )

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Question begging of the highest order.

So, you want evidence for Highest Order? And what have you scientists been telling us? Or have you been lying?

“The observed values of the physical and cosmological quantities, are not equally probable. (No chance) But that they take on values, restricted by the requirement that there exists sites in the universe, where carbon based life can exist, and the requirement that the universe is old enough to already have done so”. (See; John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle )

; “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order!!)but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order) and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job……………If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanism that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of Intelligent Design behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? ( See Dr Paul Davies Super Force: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, pp 235-236)

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming”( See Freeman Dyson Disturbing the Universe, )

The only thing that is evidence of, without rechecking the quotes, is that scientists are not perfect & a few are less perfect than most.

 

[Sarkus]

So, you want evidence for Highest Order?

No, I said that it was question begging of the highest order... "of the highest order" being an idiom meaning "a superb example of".
I.e. Your reply was a superb example of question begging.
[qupte]And what have you scientists been telling us? Or have you been lying?

“The observed values of the physical and cosmological quantities, are not equally probable. (No chance) But that they take on values, restricted by the requirement that there exists sites in the universe, where carbon based life can exist, and the requirement that the universe is old enough to already have done so”. (See; John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle )[/quote]The Anthropic Principle is nothing but a tautological truism which can be succinctly summarised as: "if things were different then things would be different". They offer nothing by way of explanation, nor anything testable, and they remain unscientific philosophical considerations at best.
Further, the quote you have provided is a rather good example of the tendency within those that argue for it to reverse cause and effect... "... that they take on values, restricted by the requirement that there exists sites in the universe, where carbon based life can exist..." is no different than arguing that sausages are the shape they are so that they can fit into modern hotdog buns.
I.e. It is not that the values are required to bring about life, but that life arose simply because it was able to within the Pe-existing effects.
Seriously, the Anthropic principle is unscientific, so to argue it as though it is a scientific claim is to misunderstand its nature.

; “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order!!)but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, (Highest Order) and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job……………If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanism that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of Intelligent Design behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? ( See Dr Paul Davies Super Force: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, pp 235-236)

Yes, another argument of fine-tuning, that has already been discussed and its flaws highlighted to you.
Remember the Douglas Adam quote of how the puddle thinks the hole in which it resides was made just for it, given how perfectly the puddle fits within it....

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming”( See Freeman Dyson Disturbing the Universe, )

People are able to think what they like, and to philosophise about the nature of existence, to their heart's content.
But don't claim it as scientific unless it adheres to the scientific method, and the conclusions do not require unwarranted assumptions.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Question begging of the highest order.

So, you want evidence for Highest Order?

Who said they want evidence?

 

[gmilam]

Question begging of the highest order.

So, you want evidence for Highest Order?

Wow - severe lack of reading comprehension.

 

[iceaura]

To me, its commonsensical logic, that our scientific modeling of nature, infers intelligent design of nature. For we could not have developed these models that fits nature, if nature were not intelligently designed.

But it's wrong - your logic has led you to error.

We have not only the observation of order emerging undesigned in many contexts, but a well-researched and overwhelmingly supported theory providing us with mechanism and criteria and testable hypotheses for such emergence. So the error is not only in what could by reason be, but what has happened in fact - both reasoning and fact are in error.

 

[BIGFOOT]

Wow - severe lack of reading comprehension.

Yeah, you could say that...........never heard of that one.

 

[BIGFOOT]

Question begging of the highest order. There is zero support for what you assume, other than your obvious desire for it to be so.
Furthermore, applying what one considers to be common sense is not the same as thinking critically about something, and you need to do the latter rather than rely on the former.

And if you want to deflect the argument onto one of semantics around "intelligence" then you are also missing the point to a large extent in that, whether there intelligent or not, you are advocating a Designer.
So you tell me how you want "intelligence" means in the context you are using it, and while you're at it, do the same for "design" so that we can avoid going through any further attempts to evade.
Again the analogy makes the assumption of design.
As a means of explaining your position, fair enough, but it is already understood. The issue is that it is unsupported by anything other than unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, appeals to common sense etc.
Do you mean "dabbling"?
Scientists as people are as vulnerable to passions, emotions and every other gamut of human experience as the next person.
Science is not.
Do not equate the two. Whether scientists, as people, dabble in alchemy, ghost hunting, witch craft, religion, rugby, cricket or soccer has no bearing on the actual process of science, although it may well inform their focus. This is why peer review is also so important, to weed out the bias, the errors, the emotion.
Science does not invade religion other than where religion makes scientific claims, or tries to rely on scientific claims to support the religious position, such as ID does.
That is when the rugby players invite the soccer players on the pitch to play soccer.
So if all Zargs are Xeegs, and all Xeegs are Yarps, then all Zargs are Yarps.
This is logical.
How is it scientific? How is it testable?
This is merely an example of logic at work on abstract notions. There is nothing scientific about it... no means of following the scientific method.
So beg to differ all you want, but while science uses logic, and has its foundation in logic, not everything that is logical is scientific.
This is, ironically, a logical fallacy on your part: affirming the consequent.
Logic is a method that of reasoning, yes. Science is a method of applying that logic to observations of the universe. Where there is no observation, such as mere abstracts, then there is no science but there is still logic.
And you are arguing a strawman... no one wants to create a boundary where none exist, but we do have to be mindful of where there is an inherent boundary, and to ignore it will result in meaningless conclusions based on fallacies.
The only problem in that regard is you seeing a tree and claiming the existence of a forest.

Okay, I got you wrong first, on "Highest Order"

But tell me this, what does this statement means attributed to Einstein? I think it is an admission of Intelligent Design by the father of Relativity.

“I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” ( See M..G.S Viereck Glimpses of the Great,)


The child knows someone must have written those books.

The child knows someone must have written those books.

The child knows someone must have written those books.

That's what am saying too. Someone was behind creation.

Am I supposed to believe that all this happened by chance?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_diseno_antropico_2.htm

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Okay, I got you wrong first, on "Highest Order"

But tell me this, what does this statement means attributed to Einstein? I think it is an admission of Intelligent Design by the father of Relativity.

“I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” ( See M..G.S Viereck Glimpses of the Great,)

That does not even imply that he believed in god(s). He was describing his impression of our level of knowledge, the attitude of many toward knowledge & the unknown & the fact that we yet have a long way to go. It definitely was not an admission of intelligent design or intended creation by any conscious entity.
He used the word god differently from theists. For instance, when he said "God does not play dice with the universe" he simply meant that there must be a cause for everything. He was a bit ambiguous but the vast majority of what he said & wrote shows he did not believe in any omnipotent god creating & controlling the universe. Like many, he unjustly did not like the word atheist. He also denied being a theist. Of course, 1 must be either theist or atheist. You post quotes you think show he would support your claims & I posted quotes which showed he would not. Yet you persist in pretending to misunderstand him.


Am I supposed to believe gods happened by chance?

 

[Sarkus]

Okay, I got you wrong first, on "Highest Order"

But tell me this, what does this statement means attributed to Einstein? I think it is an admission of Intelligent Design by the father of Relativity.

“I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” ( See M..G.S Viereck Glimpses of the Great,)

First, appeals to authority and/or celebrity aren't too compelling.
Second, one man's opinion does not make it fact.
Third, even ignoring the accuracy of your interpretation of what Einstein wrote, it would still not be an "admission of Intelligent Design" but an admission that he believed there to be Intelligent Design.
Note the difference?
Fourth, whether or not Einstein believed, it does not make the notion any less unscientific. It merely means he held a personal opinion on the matter, whether held through personal incredulity, wishful thinking, a profound sense of awe and wonder etc.

The child knows someone must have written those books.

The child knows someone must have written those books.

The child knows someone must have written those books.

Fifth, do you think that repeating the line three times makes it any stronger? Or do you realise that in doing this you come across as a child having a tantrum and trying to persuade through force repetition.

That's what am saying too. Someone was behind creation.

Am I supposed to believe that all this happened by chance?

Ultimately you can believe what you want, whether supported by science, by logical and rational argument, or merely through personal incredulity at the alternatives.
Just don't dress up your reasoning for your belief as anything other than it is: do not dress it up as science when it is not; do not claim it is supported by science when it is not.

But I guess, if you deal out a shuffled deck of cards, you would be amazed that it came out in the order it did. "Wow, what were the chances! How could it have occurred by mere chance?"
Or, as exampled previously, you would be amazed how sausages knew just how to be long and straight to fit in modern hotdog buns. "What were the chances that, hundreds of years ago, they knew just how to design sausages to fit the buns of today!"

If/when you figure out why I use these examples, you'll understand the issues I see with your position and line of argument.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_diseno_antropico_2.htm

Just repeating the same argument without addressing the criticisms people have already made of it when you first raised it is bordering on trolling, preaching, or

 

[BIGFOOT]

First, appeals to authority and/or celebrity aren't too compelling.
Second, one man's opinion does not make it fact.
Third, even ignoring the accuracy of your interpretation of what Einstein wrote, it would still not be an "admission of Intelligent Design" but an admission that he believed there to be Intelligent Design.
Note the difference?
Fourth, whether or not Einstein believed, it does not make the notion any less unscientific. It merely means he held a personal opinion on the matter, whether held through personal incredulity, wishful thinking, a profound sense of awe and wonder etc.
Fifth, do you think that repeating the line three times makes it any stronger? Or do you realise that in doing this you come across as a child having a tantrum and trying to persuade through force repetition.
Ultimately you can believe what you want, whether supported by science, by logical and rational argument, or merely through personal incredulity at the alternatives.
Just don't dress up your reasoning for your belief as anything other than it is: do not dress it up as science when it is not; do not claim it is supported by science when it is not.

But I guess, if you deal out a shuffled deck of cards, you would be amazed that it came out in the order it did. "Wow, what were the chances! How could it have occurred by mere chance?"
Or, as exampled previously, you would be amazed how sausages knew just how to be long and straight to fit in modern hotdog buns. "What were the chances that, hundreds of years ago, they knew just how to design sausages to fit the buns of today!"

If/when you figure out why I use these examples, you'll understand the issues I see with your position and line of argument.
Just repeating the same argument without addressing the criticisms people have already made of it when you first raised it is bordering on trolling, preaching, or

First, appeals to authority and/or celebrity aren't too compelling.
Second, one man's opinion does not make it fact.
Third, even ignoring the accuracy of your interpretation of what Einstein wrote, it would still not be an "admission of Intelligent Design" but an admission that he believed there to be Intelligent Design.
Note the difference?
Fourth, whether or not Einstein believed, it does not make the notion any less unscientific. It merely means he held a personal opinion on the matter, whether held through personal incredulity, wishful thinking, a profound sense of awe and wonder etc.

First; So, now renown Scientists have become “Celebrities” because they support a controversial ideas?

Second; For a man who gave groundbreaking theories, I respect his opinion especially on a subject that he was above the shoulders of his peers. And for you to dismiss him like a nobody, says a lot about what you think of yourself. No?

Third; Your are just twisting words so that they may appear to mean something else.

Fourth; Science have always been opinions of others which were later found to be true. So, to dismiss what other scientists say of the Universe and how it came to be, is actually trivializing the same route it has followed.

Fifth, do you think that repeating the line three times makes it any stronger? Or do you realise that in doing this you come across as a child having a tantrum and trying to persuade through force repetition.

Actually it was baffling to me, that such a great scientist could concede the probability of Intelligent Design, while some later day scientific minions have the audacity to dismiss the whole thing as a nonsense. I could not believe I was reading it………..and here you are daring to dismiss it.

Ultimately you can believe what you want, whether supported by science, by logical and rational argument, or merely through personal incredulity at the alternatives. Just don't dress up your reasoning for your belief as anything other than it is: do not dress it up as science when it is not; do not claim it is supported by science when it is not.


Am no longer in the world of “belief” I got it, and you can say all you want about my conclusion, but my mind is never going back to wanting proof. My reasoning is scientific, because I am using scientific knowledge, and ideas by other renown scientists. Why should I call it by another name? I have explained to you clearly, logically, in my view. Its for you to go, and decide whether you will take the route I have suggested. If you want to remain “We do not know” that’s you right.


But I guess, if you deal out a shuffled deck of cards, you would be amazed that it came out in the order it did. "Wow, what were the chances! How could it have occurred by mere chance?"

Supposing you were given a pack of cards facing downwards, and you were told to shuffle them ten times and then pull one card in the middle. What are the chances that every time you pulled the card, it turned up to be the same card, A Of Spades? Not likely, no? So, if it happened, what would be your conclusion? I guess you would say that all the cards are in fact, the same card. A Of Spades

You draw conclusion because of inferences . You make assumptions based on what logic dictates. Its highly unlikely for the same card to prop up.

Now, it’s the same kind of conclusions one can draw from scientific inquiry. Every time we investigate an issue, design and purpose emerges. Incredible coincidences emerge. Law governing the reality conveniently are balanced on knife-edge.

I mean, how is it possible that we unravel history of ancient civilization basing out sturdy on excavation, and we are not intrigued by scientific discoveries that suggest Intelligence? I think at this age of science, its more spooky not to believe in Intelligent design than to belief.

 

[Sarkus]

First; So, now renown Scientists have become “Celebrities” because they support a controversial ideas?

No, they are celebrities because they are popular figures.
If the appeal is to their celebrity (e.g. Person X is famous and he says Y, therefore Y is true) then the argument is fallacious.
If the appeal is to their authority (e.g. Person X is famous in the field of QM therefore whatever he says in QM is true) then this is also fallacious.
With Einstein being quoted about his philosophy, one could argue that it one or the other, or even both of those fallacies. Hence my "and/or".

Second; For a man who gave groundbreaking theories, I respect his opinion especially on a subject that he was above the shoulders of his peers. And for you to dismiss him like a nobody, says a lot about what you think of yourself. No?

I would trust what he says when there is evidence or the maths to support it. Otherwise it is just opinion, on a subject matter for which there is no scientific evidence.
Why would you accept his position and not the plethora of eminent scientists who do not believe in God, and certainly not in Intelligent Design? It is because you are arguing for his popularity, his celebrity, to add weight to your position rather than actually provide any tangible support.

Third; Your are just twisting words so that they may appear to mean something else.

No, I am trying to make the distinction between an "admission of X..." (as if implying "... therefore X is true") and "admission of belief in X..." (which makes no allusion to veracity of the belief).

Fourth; Science have always been opinions of others which were later found to be true. So, to dismiss what other scientists say of the Universe and how it came to be, is actually trivializing the same route it has followed.

The distinction that you are missing, and which has been repeatedly pointed out to you yet you choose to ignore, is that what is often said of the universe (e.g. it's origin, ID etc) is unscientific: it is untestable, unfalsifiable.
The very fact that science is rife with examples of old theories being overturned is due to the fact that those claims were testable, were falsifiable, and hence scientific from the outset.
If you can formulate ID or the origin of the universe, or God into a scientific hypothesis - that can be tested, falsified etc, then go ahead and do so.
And as stated, scientists can have opinions on anything they want, but they do not call them all scientific, and do not claim that all their opinions are supported scientifically. Einstein knew this. He was a philosopher as well as a scientist, and while he tried to philosophise about what he saw from science, he was aware that his conclusions were just his opinion, and unfalsifiable, and not within the remit of science.

Actually it was baffling to me, that such a great scientist could concede the probability of Intelligent Design, while some later day scientific minions have the audacity to dismiss the whole thing as a nonsense. I could not believe I was reading it………..and here you are daring to dismiss it.

And yet despite having your appeals to celebrity/authority highlighted, you continue with them.
Einstein had his reasons for believing what he believed. As does everyone. But that does not make his beliefs any more scientific as a result.

Am no longer in the world of “belief” I got it, and you can say all you want about my conclusion, but my mind is never going back to wanting proof. My reasoning is scientific, because I am using scientific knowledge, and ideas by other renown scientists. Why should I call it by another name? I have explained to you clearly, logically, in my view. Its for you to go, and decide whether you will take the route I have suggested. If you want to remain “We do not know” that’s you right.

You use scientific knowledge and you do so fallaciously, as has been pointed out.
You are guilty of selective bias in your examples, including those of the philosophers and scientists you claim as your authority.
You have explained to me the (flawed) logic of your reasoning, and due to those flaws, and the unwarranted assumptions that you require, I do not accept your conclusions as valid, let alone sound.
But as said, you can believe what you want, claim what you want, but do not call it science, for the simple reason, as explained repeatedly to you, it is not.

Supposing you were given a pack of cards facing downwards, and you were told to shuffle them ten times and then pull one card in the middle. What are the chances that every time you pulled the card, it turned up to be the same card, A Of Spades? Not likely, no? So, if it happened, what would be your conclusion? I guess you would say that all the cards are in fact, the same card. A Of Spades

No, the odds would be 1 in 10^17 or so, but this is a very different situation to the one you are arguing from, and is a strawman on your part.
You are arguing from the result and trying to work out the odds of it happening, yet assuming that the result is the one that was specifically intended.
That intention is your flaw. There is simply no evidence of it. It is an unwarranted assumption.

You draw conclusion because of inferences . You make assumptions based on what logic dictates. Its highly unlikely for the same card to prop up.

Now, it’s the same kind of conclusions one can draw from scientific inquiry. Every time we investigate an issue, design and purpose emerges. Incredible coincidences emerge. Law governing the reality conveniently are balanced on knife-edge.

I mean, how is it possible that we unravel history of ancient civilization basing out sturdy on excavation, and we are not intrigued by scientific discoveries that suggest Intelligence? I think at this age of science, its more spooky not to believe in Intelligent design than to belief.

More of the same flawed thinking on your part, but it is now clear it is pointless to keep explaining to you, as you don't even acknowledge the nature of the criticism and merely repeat ad nauseam.

 

[iceaura]

But tell me this, what does this statement means attributed to Einstein? I think it is an admission of Intelligent Design by the father of Relativity.

It isn't, but so what if it were? Following Einstein around until he makes a mistake is not an argument for anything.

Am I supposed to believe that all this happened by chance?

No. You are supposed to learn about evolutionary theory, and also desist from repeating obvious errors of statistical reasoning after they have been pointed out to you five or six times.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

==================

Am I supposed to believe gods happened by chance?

 

[BIGFOOT]

It isn't, but so what if it were? Following Einstein around until he makes a mistake is not an argument for anything.

No. You are supposed to learn about evolutionary theory, and also desist from repeating obvious errors of statistical reasoning after they have been pointed out to you five or six times.

“Why would you accept his position and not the plethora of eminent scientists who do not believe in God, and certainly not in Intelligent Design?”

One, is because I have researched and found irrefutable evidence of Intelligence Design. Two, there may be as many, (if not more) scientists who accept Intelligent Design and acknowledge the presence of the Divine and believe in God as there are who do not. So, if it was a matter of choosing between the two camps, (which is not) I guess it would end up as a toss up of a coin.

If you can formulate ID or the origin of the universe, or God into a scientific hypothesis - that can be tested, falsified etc, then go ahead and do so.

For a methodology that has arrived and the nature of the Universe (What it is made of) as probabilistic, uncertain, and super positioned, I do not have faith that it can tell me anything more which is testable, and therefore falsifiable, about the unknown. So, it’s a kind of and impasse.

Einstein had his reasons for believing what he believed. As does everyone. But that does not make his beliefs any more scientific as a result.

His view are important for consideration-especially because he was knowledgeable in the field of science. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and all other great Greek philosophers did not always tell what was true. But we keep hanging on to their philosophies. Same with guys like Einstein.

“You are guilty of selective bias in your examples, including those of the philosophers and scientists you claim as your authority”

Yeah. Guilty. Blame Ockham. I have cut off the nonsense.

You have explained to me the (flawed) logic of your reasoning, and due to those flaws, and the unwarranted assumptions that you require, I do not accept your conclusions as valid, let alone sound.

You are welcome not to accept my conclusions Am happy to accept them alone. “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer, I accept the ridicule

But as said, you can believe what you want, claim what you want, but do not call it science, for the simple reason, as explained repeatedly to you, it is not..

Yeah. Its not your version of science. I have enough other scientists on my side. Am comfortable. Thank you very much.

Evidently, its clear that Atheism is just as powerful religion just like any other, and has hardcore adherents. And yes. It’s a religion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“Why would you accept his position and not the plethora of eminent scientists who do not believe in God, and certainly not in Intelligent Design?”
One, is because I have researched and found irrefutable evidence of Intelligence Design. Two, there may be as many, (if not more) scientists who accept Intelligent Design and acknowledge the presence of the Divine and believe in God as there are who do not. So, if it was a matter of choosing between the two camps, (which is not) I guess it would end up as a toss up of a coin.
If you can formulate ID or the origin of the universe, or God into a scientific hypothesis - that can be tested, falsified etc, then go ahead and do so.
For a methodology that has arrived and the nature of the Universe (What it is made of) as probabilistic, uncertain, and super positioned, I do not have faith that it can tell me anything more which is testable, and therefore falsifiable, about the unknown. So, it’s a kind of and impasse.
Einstein had his reasons for believing what he believed. As does everyone. But that does not make his beliefs any more scientific as a result.
His view are important for consideration-especially because he was knowledgeable in the field of science. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and all other great Greek philosophers did not always tell what was true. But we keep hanging on to their philosophies. Same with guys like Einstein.
“You are guilty of selective bias in your examples, including those of the philosophers and scientists you claim as your authority”
Yeah. Guilty. Blame Ockham. I have cut off the nonsense.
You have explained to me the (flawed) logic of your reasoning, and due to those flaws, and the unwarranted assumptions that you require, I do not accept your conclusions as valid, let alone sound.
You are welcome not to accept my conclusions Am happy to accept them alone. “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer, I accept the ridicule
But as said, you can believe what you want, claim what you want, but do not call it science, for the simple reason, as explained repeatedly to you, it is not..
Yeah. Its not your version of science. I have enough other scientists on my side. Am comfortable. Thank you very much.
Evidently, its clear that Atheism is just as powerful religion just like any other, and has hardcore adherents. And yes. It’s a religion.

What is clear to you in your dreamworld of illusion just isn't true. By definition, atheism cannot be a religion. That is only your excuse for being unable to support your claims.
You do not have many scientists on your side. Even IF you did, you would still need good evidence for your claims.
We are not ridiculing you. You are doing it to yourself.
You do not understand Einstein or Ockham. You should stomp on your hand for pretending to think you do.
If you have researched and found irrefutable evidence of Intelligence Design, why won't you present it?

 

[cole grey]

I think the einstein quote about dice is not a very good one to bring up by religious people. It seems to be his response to the quantum ideas that are currently understood to "make sense", so in a way this is like quoting the American south's old views on slavery. But in this case it seems to be brought up as an example of the frequent misapplication of quotes, which is exactly the case in the quote about books (probably). The biggest issue with suggesting that pattern=design is that any pattern that did emerge would be considered the design by anyone experiencing life within that pattern. The fact that we exist does not demand a reason "why", nor does a pattern demand a creator. The idea that we look for meaning other than what we have already seen because there must be a meaning beyond is unsupportable.
The idea, seemingly presented here, that religion and science will merge completely, with religion cleansed of all of its ideas which are not scientifically coherent, sounds strange to me. I personally, as a religious person, freely admit that there are non-rational, yes confusing, ideas in religion, and would go so far as to say that those ideas which we cannot easily reconcile are the ones which give us a chance to step outside pure rational experience in some way, just as the zen koan is designed to do. In doing so we realize we are not the be-all end-all of the universe. When we have explained it all, we will be Gods, if not God, certainly in terms of our power, and in relation to what we are now. This may be an aspiration for some, but seeing the types of humans we are, i fear we would be even worse as gods. But since one answer usually brings up at least a few new questions I am not too worried about us explaining everything anyway.
The question i have for bigfoot is, where does philosophy (a descriptive world of unverifiable ideas) fit into your worldview? It seems you have just as much of a problem with accepting things as unverifiable as those types of people who misunderstand the boundaries of science, and think it can do the work of philosophy.

 

[Sarkus]

“Why would you accept his position and not the plethora of eminent scientists who do not believe in God, and certainly not in Intelligent Design?”

One, is because I have researched and found irrefutable evidence of Intelligence Design. Two, there may be as many, (if not more) scientists who accept Intelligent Design and acknowledge the presence of the Divine and believe in God as there are who do not. So, if it was a matter of choosing between the two camps, (which is not) I guess it would end up as a toss up of a coin.

Please post the "irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design" and we will happily show you why it can (and should) be refuted.
If it was merely choosing between the two camps, why make a choice at all? Why not conclude "I don't know!"? Or is it that you need to have an answer?
And given that you are quoting Einstein in support of your position, with no actual substance to support it other than it being Einstein who said it (hence it being an appeal to popularity and celebrity), on what basis do you discount the scientists who make claims that there is no God?

If you can formulate ID or the origin of the universe, or God into a scientific hypothesis - that can be tested, falsified etc, then go ahead and do so.

For a methodology that has arrived and the nature of the Universe (What it is made of) as probabilistic, uncertain, and super positioned, I do not have faith that it can tell me anything more which is testable, and therefore falsifiable, about the unknown. So, it’s a kind of and impasse.

No, it's not an impasse. It simply means that your claims are unscientific, that your claim of it being supported by science is incorrect.
Yes, you may start from the scientific knowledge we have at present, but you introduce unwarranted assumptions that push it into the realm of unscientific speculation and wishful thinking.
There is no impasse... just an incorrect view of of what you are claiming as being scientific.

Einstein had his reasons for believing what he believed. As does everyone. But that does not make his beliefs any more scientific as a result.

His view are important for consideration-especially because he was knowledgeable in the field of science. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and all other great Greek philosophers did not always tell what was true. But we keep hanging on to their philosophies. Same with guys like Einstein.

And how does this negate the point I made, other than to accentuate the point of your appeal to authority/celebrity with regard Einstein?

“You are guilty of selective bias in your examples, including those of the philosophers and scientists you claim as your authority”

Yeah. Guilty. Blame Ockham. I have cut off the nonsense.

No, you have introduced nonsense through the unwarranted assumptions.

You have explained to me the (flawed) logic of your reasoning, and due to those flaws, and the unwarranted assumptions that you require, I do not accept your conclusions as valid, let alone sound.

You are welcome not to accept my conclusions Am happy to accept them alone. “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer, I accept the ridicule

Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, as already explained to you: just because (as claimed by Schopenhauer) truth starts off being ridiculed does not mean that everything ridiculed is the truth.
Sometimes fallacious thinking is simply fallacious thinking.
It is your arrogance that the ridicule is a sign of the veracity of your claims and arguments that is most concerning. If you think you are being ridiculed then it is a case of being ridiculed for thinking 2+2=3, yet you take the ridicule as meaning you are on the right track.

But as said, you can believe what you want, claim what you want, but do not call it science, for the simple reason, as explained repeatedly to you, it is not..

Yeah. Its not your version of science. I have enough other scientists on my side. Am comfortable. Thank you very much.

Evidently, its clear that Atheism is just as powerful religion just like any other, and has hardcore adherents. And yes. It’s a religion.

Having scientists on your side is not the same as it being scientific! You do understand the difference between the two, I hope? Or are you going to cling to your appeal to false authority? You do realise that scientists can do other things other than conduct science? And that you don't need to be a recognised scientist to conduct science?

And now you throw around rather pathetic claims to try and obfuscate and evade actually addressing the criticisms of your position.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]