« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

Mike,

Physics vis-à-vis design is, we already know, unnecessary on your terms.

It's okay.

That's a fine stopping point.

All is well.

Carry on.

Be content.


"Physics vis-à-vis design is, we already know, unnecessary on your terms"

A meaningless sentence. Bulls dingly danglys.

SCBLHRM was hasty in 'agreeing' with Mike that the laptop is designed. Mike's recalcitrance in saying what he means by the sentence "the laptop is designed" makes it impossible to agree or disagree with the claim. Given what I know of Mike's meanings, it seems to me that the sentence isn't true, it's not even false.

Mike,

Physics isn't a part of how you've unpacked appearances. You're clearly content with such a method.

If you'd like to change that methodological approach it won't bother us.


Wisdomlover

One more time because you appear to have missed the point yet again.

The contentious issue here is a claim about biological organisms being designed.

therefore its up to those that claim that to do the defining.

What is wrong with that?

schlbrown

"Physics isn't a part of how you've unpacked appearances."

ANother meaningtless sentence You are on a ROLL!

WisdomLover

Would you not say your laptop is designed? Yes or no?

Mike,

What do you mean by "designed" when you say the laptop is designed?


scbrownlhrm

What do IDers mean when they say biological organisms are designed?

Thats the issue.

Stop trying to make me do the work.

No Mike, your recalcitrant refusal to even say what you mean makes "the laptop is designed" the contentious claim. Unless and until you say what you mean, I shall assume that what you are saying is untrue, and possibly false.

I do not and will not agree with you about the laptop until you make yourself clear.

I agree with WL.

Try physics Mike.

You know, science.

"No WisdomLover, your recalcitrant refusal to even say what you mean makes "biological organisms are designed" is the contentious claim. Unless and until you say what you mean, I shall assume that what you are saying is untrue, and possibly false.

I do not and will not agree with you about the biological organisms until you make yourself clear."

Do you remember what the title of the thread is?

Because until you can do this, the only conclusion is that intelligent design CANT be true.

That doesnt make evolution true. But it does reduce ID to what it is - doctrinally motivated BS.

"Try physics Mike."

I have schlbrown, I have. In fact, I have pieces of paper that testify to me having 'tried' physics.

lol

Mike, I've already defined "design". It's only you that have not.

You're in no position whatsoever to make judgments about anything. Your words have no meaning.

Oh apologies WisdomLover, I missed the part where you defined design and the robust basis for detecting it?

But feel free to refresh my memory.

No. It's your turn.

I don't need anything 'robust'. I'll settle for flimsy.

"No. It's your turn."

Too funny! Look, it doesnt matter what I think because Im not claiming biological organisms are designed.

Very simple.

If you think biological organsims are designed then what does that mean? How is it detected?

Note that Behe/Luskin et al understand this problem and have tried to answer it because that's why they came up with CSI/explanatory filter and all that rubbish about irreducible complexity

soooooooooo - actually its your turn and always will be

BTW-

The meaning of "designed" is different from your 'robust' thingy. I'd settle with just starting with a meaning. What exactly is it that you think you can detect in laptops, 'robustly' or otherwise?

We can talk about how we detect this quality after that.

"What exactly is it that you think you can detect in laptops, 'robustly' or otherwise?"

Who cares?

If ID claims biological organisms were designed it needs to say what that means.

WisdomLover

Im fine with you doing this because you are absolutely undermining Intelligent Design. Fab.

OK. Got it Mike.

We're done. Come back when you're willing to say what on earth you are talking about. Because I'll read your words, but I won't read your mind.

Got it wisdomlover. You cant say what ID means when it says biological organisms were desgined.

Great :)

Therefore, given the current level of understanding, the answer to this thread is "No, ID is a bag of rubbish and cannot possibly be true"

Mike,

Don't feel bad.

Physics, being science, isn't something you can employ given your methodological approach here.

Metaphysics....well.... you should clearly stay clear of such.

However, on the bright side you're inability to incorporate physics, as in real science, into your definition of what is taking place in [A] as [A] designs [B] is certainly very satisfying for you.

And that is all that really matters.

The Theist of course doesn't stop where you stop, with appearances, but chooses to incorporate both physics and metaphysics into his definition of [A]'s activities which we label "designing".

Hence the lack of progress here is understandable as you're content with appearances whereas the Christian is asking of you something very different.

After all, given your aversion to physics there isn't much to "unpack" between the two of us in that, well, short of physics and metaphysics in your explanations, well, there's just whatever gut-feel happens to pop up from raw appearances.

Which, given our goal of demonstrating the Non-Theist's inability to rationally affirm design in and by his own means, is very, very satisfying for us.

Moving forward:

As you seek to learn what design is and isn't you will want to remember that physics *outside* of neurons/skulls and physics *inside* of neurons/skulls is all one, seamless continuum.

Don't bother asking what *that* has to do with what [A]'s activity is when [A] is designing [B], as it's simply going to be over your head.

Because physics.

"Behe/Luskin agree with me"

They aren't arguing the same point scbrownlhrm is arguing. The thing is Mike, you either dont want to admit or cant reason well enough to know that your worldview drives your interpretation of so called evidence.

Early on, you sawed off the branch you sit on just so you can attack ID. WisdomLover called you on it and then the argument went on to asking you how do you do the scientific method? How do you define design? was a legitimate question to ask. If someone was to provide you an answer, we must have your definition, otherwise it is a goose chase/rabbit trail. Turns out it surely is that. You use one standard for your favored/desired conclusion and another standard for the opponent.

So far, you say that "we observe primates make artefacts".

If observation is your only and great provider of knowledge in your system, how then can you judge another system that you haven't or cant observe? ID is not a problem for the Christian worlview, it is a problem for your worldview...this is why there is such a vehement attack and substantial hurdle placed on it. Luskin and Behe want to take that attack away from you.

You say, "I dont make truth claims", but you do when you judge the claims of IDist's by your "observation only standard". Truth is, your own system cant abide/survive in that standard for one minute.

Not that long ago, detecting design and an expectation of design detection, wasn't even debated. Now, per Lewinton's cry...this is a major focus of the war on worldviews.

Hmmm, opened up the previous page and came back to it to comment, now its full and another comes up and I see Mike make several "truth claims" here on this page...talk about "doctrinally driven BS", huuumph...

Mike like others before him comes across as an arrogant academic that looks down his nose at any who challenge the pieces of paper he relies on the prove to himself that he's accomplished something. Early on, he breaks the 4th wall when he lets us know that he's fully capable, a little later, he claims degrees, now the pieces of paper that prove something.

He excels at the company line but can see past the holy book when challenges...legitimate challenges to his system come along. I wonder can he even recognize them as legitimate challenges...I honestly doubt he can. He's a true believer for sure...like a Jehovah Witness tied to The Watchtower publications....will only listen to the one source for faith and practice.

Born out of a system that has long sought to cast of restraints of prior discliplines, he embraces the training and runs wild with the other perpetual adolescents who refuse to come under authority. Not all who enter the system do this, some recognize necessity when it comes calling.

"Look at all the useful toys and tools we have produced in our system"...even further look at all the money to be made in this trial and error fumble around in the dark pursuit... Philosophers{?]... they make nearly nothing if anything at all. WE WILL NOT BE RULED!

WL: What exactly is it that you think you can detect in laptops, 'robustly' or otherwise?

Mike: Who cares?

-----------------

We can add "seeing it built", and some vague reference to majority agreement about appearances wrapped up in "we all agree X is designed".

Also, we can watch undesigned things move, and those movements qualify as designing.

So we've 4 criteria by which the Non-Theist makes a truth claim on reality. That truth claim being that design exists in a universe such as ours.

Then, the Non-Theist claims he makes no truth claims about reality.

Neither physics nor metaphysics are, ever, employed.

It's all very "As-If".


Me: "Try physics Mike." (In telling us what you mean by design)

Mike: I have schlbrown, I have. In fact, I have pieces of paper that testify to me having 'tried' physics...."

--------------

Lest we think physics constituting neuroscience wasn't offered to Mike....several.... times....over...

Mike,

Until you can demonstrate a level of sophistication capable of incorporating the fact that physics *outside* of neurons/skulls and physics *inside* of neurons/skulls is all one, seamless continuum, that the rules don't inexplicably change when transitioning among outside/inside said neurons/skulls, all your attempts are going to run far, far afield from what both reason and science require of your terms, of your explanations.

[A]'s various activities when [A] is designing [B] is simply something you're not prepared to explain. Not on the level of neuroscience nor on the level of physics and certainly not on any intelligible level interfacing on the metaphysical landscape constituting the philosophy of mind.

That's just painfully obvious now, although I had hoped such wasn't the case with you.

But it is, and, even more unfortunate, you're clearly satisfied with the bits and fragments which are left over short of all those other requirements: appearances.

So carry on in your contentment with appearances.

BTW Mike,

You won't understand the Christian claims of design unless you understand "final causes". The NASA evolutionary simulator format helps unpack a few interesting contours over in that arena. That such coheres nicely with the uniquely Christian corridors of Eden's Possible Worlds, and with the evil found within the red of tooth and claw (the EAAE) is enigmatically interesting.

Of course, such isn't going to be unpacked here. In fact, unless and until *you* explain what *you* mean by "is designing" when *you* say that [A] "is designing" [B], nothing more about anything needs to be said.

The phrase "is designing" is used in order to get us to what it is that designs so that we can then get to what is designed.

Why?

Because without "is designing" there can never be a rational, intelligible "designed". While the Christian has all sorts of vectors well in hand to unpack his claims of design, the Non-Theist is, so far, insolvent in all his accounting.

Perhaps a calculator explaining how many generations it takes for the illusion of design, of purpose, to take root would be helpful in a universe such as ours.

Purpose and Intention and Volitional and Neuroscience and the hard fist of Physics and the Philosophy of Mind are your "clues" as you attempt to claim, as a Non-Theist, that design exists in a universe such as ours.

Ah BradB has turned up again. Lets take a look at this.

""Behe/Luskin agree with me"

They aren't arguing the same point scbrownlhrm is arguing"

The point I was making to schlbrownthingy, which you have claerly missed as well is this; Lusking et al know that they need to show how ID can detect design and thus fumbled theoir way to CSI/explantory filetrs and irreducible complexity. So I dont CARE what schlbrown waffles on about

"The thing is Mike, you either dont want to admit or cant reason well enough to know that your worldview drives your interpretation of so called evidence."

Show that this is the case. Lay out the argument. Otherwise it simply gets dismissed as unsubstantiated.

"Early on, you sawed off the branch you sit on just so you can attack ID. WisdomLover called you on it and then the argument went on to asking you how do you do the scientific method? How do you define design? was a legitimate question to ask."

ID claims design, ID needs to say what design is and how they detect it. Luskin/Behe agree with me. Go figure. No branch sawn off - WisdomLover has continually tried to foist the burden oif evidence onto me, and Im hot having it.


If someone was to provide you an answer, we must have your definition, otherwise it is a goose chase/rabbit trail. Turns out it surely is that. You use one standard for your favored/desired conclusion and another standard for the opponent.

"So far, you say that "we observe primates make artefacts""

lol - do you have a problem with this? Do you disagree with that observation?

"If observation is your only and great provider of knowledge in your system, how then can you judge another system that you haven't or cant observe?"

This is ridiculouslessly naiive.

"ID is not a problem for the Christian worlview, it is a problem for your worldview"

All those theist who dismiss ID and agree with evoilution disagree with you on this

"You say, "I dont make truth claims", but you do when you judge the claims of IDist's by your "observation only standard". Truth is, your own system cant abide/survive in that standard for one minute."

1. What do you mean by truth claim?
2. What truth claims have I made?
3. Why do you think 'observation is my only standard? What does this mean? What are your standards?

"Not that long ago, detecting design and an expectation of design detection, wasn't even debated. Now, per Lewinton's cry...this is a major focus of the war on worldviews."

Oh hardly. Your hubris is noted. Design isnt debated because its been debunked.

"You won't understand the Christian claims of design unless you understand "final causes". The NASA evolutionary simulator format helps unpack a few interesting contours over in that arena. That such coheres nicely with the uniquely Christian corridors of Eden's Possible Worlds, and with the evil found within the red of tooth and claw (the EAAE) is enigmatically interesting"

More pigeon chess from schlbrownthingy.

Absolutely word salad! What a load of old rubbish. Im going to nominate you for the 'weirdest things youve heard a fundie say' thread at rationalskepticism.

If any theist can run a babel fish over schlborwns babblings to make it into English, then do please translate.

ID claims biological organisms are designed.

Ive simply asked for the means by which ID can detect design.

And all one gets in response is metaphysical claptrap or burden of evidence shifting. No justification as to why thats a valid response bar word salad, pitiful philosophy and straw clutching.

Its classic. And on that basis, ID fails and the answer to this thread must be no.

Mike,

Yes, that's right.

Final causes. Physics. Metaphysics. Fixed variable sets. Mind. Personhood. Neuroscience. Programmers. Material. Immaterial. Time. Temporal becoming. Timelessness.

It's all rather straightforward in what amounts to fairly commonplace conceptual constructs these days.

But that's the Christian's "unpacking" of "design" and of "is designing".

Not yours. You've not unpacked anything for us.

The reason we are asking you over and over, ad infinitum, to unpack neuroscience and mind and physics as they all tie into "is designing" and into (then) "designed" for us is that we already know where the road of eliminative metaphysics, and physics, and so on, will all carry you.

So we sort of just drag this out to see if there is an honest Skeptic out there. If you'll ever dive into neuroscience and physics, and, glory-be, metaphysics.

This dragged out evasion on your part is helpful here to demonstrate the sort of dishonesty we as Christians have to interact with when asking Skeptics to be honest about their claims, about their reach.


So let's try again.


Your claim is housed in watching minds design things - such that "we observe that [A] is designing [B], therefore [B] is designed."

Until *you* explain what *you* mean by "is designing" when *you* say that [A] "is designing" [B], nothing more about anything needs to be said.

The phrase "is designing" is used in order to get us to what it is that designs so that we can then get to what is designed.

Why?

Because without "is designing" there can never be a rational, intelligible "designed".

As you attempt to explain to us what you mean by those words, don't forget the following clues: Purpose and Intention and Volitional and Neuroscience and the hard fist of Physics and the Philosophy of Mind.

Lastly, since you claim you are not making claims, but only employing science, then, granting such, as you attempt to claim, as a Non-Theist, that design exists in a universe such as ours, please employ physics and neuroscience in your explanation -- they clearly qualify as "science" and so you need not violate your made-up-thing about not making claims about reality.

Show us purpose. With physics.

Break it down for us.

Explain it.

Unpack it.

All the way to your final explanatory terminus.

Mike,

As we've pointed out to you, the contentious claim is your claim that laptops are designed.

It's contentious because you want us to agree with you or disagree with you.

Which we are happy to answer..... only.... we need something in order to answer you.... and that is what it is you actually mean when you say "is designing" and "designed".

We WILL answer you!!

Promise!!

"DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THTE LAPTOP IS DESIGNED?"

Well, naturally we need to know what you mean by "design".

The reason we are not answering is you is a lack of information.

Once we get that information, we will be very, very, very, very happy to explain the whole I.D. side of things.

scbrownlhrm

If I claim biological organisms take the form they have by a process called 'utterdrivilism' then its up to me to talk about what 'utterdrivilism' is and how its detected.

However, Im making no such claims. ID is making claims that biological orgaisms are designed and its perfectly reasonable for me to ask what they mean by design in that context and how it is detected.

"It's contentious because you want us to agree with you or disagree with you"

No. I dont CARE! Dont you see? If you cant say whether anything - not just biological organisms - is designed or not then ID fails before we even talk about how design is detected.

Its not up to me to do the work here. You are merely further undermining your thinly disguised religiously motivated bs.

"Final causes. Physics. Metaphysics. Fixed variable sets. Mind. Personhood. Neuroscience. Programmers. Material. Immaterial. Time. Temporal becoming. Timelessness"

????

"Show us purpose. With physics."

This is hilarious btw. Define a framework as to how one would approach that challenge. Please use English and not 'schlbrownish'

Mike,

We haven't take the ID side of things off the table. You are taking it out of play yourself.


There was this earlier:


Show us purpose.
With physics.
Break it down for us.
Explain it.
Unpack it.
All the way to your final explanatory terminus...... You know, neuroscience, physics, both inside and outside un-designed neurons and so on.

There is a reason we need that information in order to get this conversation to your desired goal, the ID side of things.

If you are interested in hearing the I.D. side of things, then we'll need that information so as we can actually talk about the same thing (design).

If you're not interested, that is okay too.

In our discussion so far, we began, pages ago, talking about design and appearances, and Stonehenge, and so on, and then the whole laptop thing came up. In other words, A through M went along just fine, and then at "N" we hit a snag.

You want to just skip over "N" and go on with the rest, with ....OPQ....Z.

But that's impossible.

Why?

Because of the need for logical progression in truth-seeking.

Because N comes before OPQRS.....Z.

That is why the laptop question needs to be "fixed" or "agreed on" before we move onto OPQRS.....Z.

It's just irrational to go on without this bit of information and that is the very simple reason behind the fact that we called "error" when you stated that laptops are designed.

So the whole discussion just halts (halted) to a stop at that point.

As this is getting tedious -- I can't speak for the others -- but if your next reply doesn't address our cry of "error" with your own genuine and systematic employment of science (neuroscience, physics, and so on) and with something more thoughtful than insults, it can only mean you've no real desire to get to the I.D. side of things.

The offer is there.

To get to the ID side of things.

In the next reply from you -- if there isn't something genuine, and systematically thorough, on "is designing" and on "designed", on what is holding us up in our logical progression with one another, well then we don't have to take ID off the table -- because you yourself will have made the choice to take the ID side of things off the table.

Mike,

Last chance to get to the ID side of things.

Explain, using physics and neuroscience, what you mean by "is designing" and "designed" when you employ something of the form, "We observe that A is designing B and B is therefore designed".

Once you do that, we'll talk about "purpose", "intention", and so on.

It's holding us up in our logical progression, as noted earlier. If you don't want to maintain said logical progression, well then we don't have to take ID off the table ourselves, because you yourself will have taken it off the table with your own hands.

Mike,

Consider "logical progression" to be a kind of ultimatum.

Schbrownlhrm

ID claims design; ID must state how it detects design.

You are simply attempting - vey poorly btw- to shift the burden of evidence onto me.

Meanwhile your highfalutin posts are extremely amusing. How simple this whole theism thing is to understand! Not at all cloaked in layers of obscure nonsense.

Mike,

Since you have elected to take I.D. off the table, I'll regretfully withhold explaining to you just what we mean by design and by detecting design and by "is designing" and by "designed", and so on.

Don't be so afraid of neuroscience and physics, BTW.

They don't bite.

Science is our friend.

Thanks for your time.


schlbrownlhrm

Well done for contradicting yourself repeatedly, confusing every reader here including yourself and displaying the best example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have ever witnessed.

I have no idea what you are talking about - and neither do you.

Keep burying yourself in metaphysical wof-waff and dingly danglys.

You are right about one thing - this has been tedious. You have produced volumes of incoherent waffle which even your fellow theists cant follow. Just because you can comment on internet forums, doesnt mean you should. And the act of commenting does not endow your posts with any sort of veracity/accuracy.

Mike,

I read your comment to me.

Thanks again for your time.

Heres the true state of ID - bullies.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/barry-arringtons-bullying/

I'll leave you with this gem by moderator and lawyer Barry Arrington of the Discovery Institute blog Uncommon Descent:

"We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 – alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself."

Gotta love the hubris.

schlbrownzipzongtrubtrub - I tried to read your comments but they werent written in English and were full of weird self referential copy/pasted claptrap so I didnt understand them. And neither did you.

"Can Intelligent Design and Evolution Both Be True?"

As this thread demonstrates, both the Christian and the Non-Theist respond with a resounding "Yes!!"

The metaphysical implications are, simply, astounding.

"Ah BradB has turned up again. Lets take a look at this."
Yeah, I work outdoors for a living working with my hands so I have limited time to respond to someone who clearly has no clue of the reasoning confronting him.

This discussion has distilled down to the method you use and its validity to judge ID. What Luskin and Behe are doing or even millions of others are doing has not one meaningful thing to say about you and your method. If you were able reason logically you would understand WisdomLover's original point and scbrownlhrm's many and varied attempts to get you to recognize that your method is just as fair game as is your challenge to have ID meet some standard.

The reason for this is unlike Luskin and Behe, we aren't satisfied with taking your rules and imposing them on our worldview. Especially when your own worldview is irrational and cannot even meet the rules you impose on your opponent. If you could reason well, you would at least understand THAT. Why do I only chirp in infrequently? You are either as dense as a block wall or just so obstinately committed to your religion that you defend without listening. Heck, you didn't even know that there are ID proponents that are not Christian and further that there are others that are not even theists proper.

We know you want to go for the low hanging fruit and attack ID that requires an inordinate proof...hyper skepticism at play. [btw, this is a standard that the Darwinian scheme {neo or otherwise} cant pass] Both attempts at explanation are abductive, and as much as you bluster about tonnes of evidence, you haven't demonstrated an ability to deal ably with sense perception because you cannot reason logically at a very basic level.

My first sentence of the last paragraph said:

"We know you want to go for the low hanging fruit and attack ID that requires an inordinate proof."

It should have said:

We know you want to go for the low hanging fruit and attack ID in a way that requires an inordinate amount of proof...

Please explain what you think my worldview is and why it is irrational. Please explain what 'rules' I am imposing.

"Heck, you didn't even know that there are ID proponents that are not Christian and further that there are others that are not even theists proper."

I asked for evidence to support this assertion - none forthcoming so far. What are their names for instance? That would be a start. Here's how it works BradB - you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. Otherwise the claim gets dismissed pretty quickly. Besides, this isnt a popularity contest. The only thing that matters is how well a theory fits the available data.

"you haven't demonstrated an ability to deal ably with sense perception because you cannot reason logically at a very basic level"

Please explain what you mean by me not being able to deal ably with sense perception?

Im going to state this again to make the point clear just in case I didnt before. This point of view is not controversial and is basic basic science/philosophy. SCience makes no truth cliams - it doesnt talk about the fundamental nature of reality. It doesnt have the tools to do so. We are stuck with observatiomnal reality. The entire point of basing science on methodological naturalism is to avoid the unnecessary implications of metaphysical terms like "truth" and "reality" - things which cannot be demonstrated by science due to its nature of inquiry. This is high school science. The only way that a comment on science discovering "truth" could be viewed as a reasonable statement is if you're using it in a basic logical sense, where a proposition can be said to be true if it is consistent with our other obsetrvations. Obviously this kind of "truth" is not one that is discovered, but rather constructed.

Do you take issue with that?

There are a lot of people here queuing up to tell me Im wrong. Not one has really offered to explain WHY they think Im wrong.

"We know you want to go for the low hanging fruit and attack ID in a way that requires an inordinate amount of proof"

1. Honestly, its more accurate if you use 'evidence' in this sentence rather than 'proof' - 'proof' is for maths, law courts and alcohol

2. Lets assume you mean that I need to bring inordinate amounts of evidence to attack ID
- Why do you think this?

The comments to this entry are closed.