Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When have biologists ever claimed this about any other organism than human beings and our evolutionary ancestors? And, don't you think it is peculiar that you are the only one who defines "choosing" in the way that you do, not requiring any kind of consciousness?

That the spirit or soul chooses was the standard definition of free will prior to evolutionists, atheists, materialists denying it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution does not claim this. Evolution is merely a term used to describe a process. It makes no claims about "freedom" or "determinism". This can be easily seen by the fact that evolution recognizes that the strongest don't always survive and beneficial mutations do not always end up advancing procreation for certain organisms.

That is just attributed to the chaos of variables involved, not to actual freedom. And again, you yourself deny there is any freedom in the universe. You are again just saying whatever works in order to safeguard your practice of regarding good and evil as scientific fact. You have no conceptual scheme, you only have this bad habit to regard what is good and evil as fact, and the rest is all just secondary.

 

[leibowde84]

That the spirit or soul chooses was the standard definition of free will prior to evolutionists, atheists, materialists denying it.

They stopped using the terms "spirit" and "soul" because they are ill-defined, vague terms. Human beings have found more appropriate/specific terms to describe mental processes. Vague terms don't do much good when trying to better understand how organisms and life exists in reality.

 

[leibowde84]

That is just attributed to the chaos of variables involved, not to actual freedom. And again, you yourself deny there is any freedom in the universe. You are again just saying whatever works in order to safeguard your practice of regarding good and evil as scientific fact. You have no conceptual scheme, you only have this bad habit to regard what is good and evil as fact, and the rest is all just secondary.

I don't consider good and evil to be objective facts. I've explained this multiple times. Morality is subjective, and survival for any organism cannot be objectively "good", because organisms usually survive at the detriment of others. So, how on earth could that be considered to be an objective "good". This goes for freedom as well. You merely provide your line of reasoning based on the childish notion of, "if you believe this, then you must believe that". It is idiotic to say the least.

Your confusion is due to your acceptance of false assumptions and your prejudice against science. I would urge you to actually listen to people instead of stubbornly sticking to false preconceived notions and reading into comments what isn't actually there. You are clinging so tightly to the false notion that you understand all "evolutionists" and it is preventing you from actually having meaningful conversations with people. I feel sorry for you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't consider good and evil to be objective facts. I've explained this multiple times, so please stop blatantly lying. It makes you look like a hypocrite, and a very ignorant one at that. Morality is subjective, and survival for any organism cannot be objectively "good", because organisms usually survive at the detriment of others. So, how on earth could that be considered to be an objective "good". This goes for freedom as well. You merely provide your line of reasoning based on the childish notion of, "if you believe this, then you must believe that". It is idiotic to say the least.

Your confusion is due to your acceptance of false assumptions and your prejudice against science. I would urge you to actually listen to people instead of stubbornly sticking to false preconceived notions and reading into comments what isn't actually there. You are clinging so tightly to the false notion that you understand all "evolutionists" and it is preventing you from actually having meaningful conversations with people. I feel sorry for you.

Leibowde, I genuinely applaud your effort in staying on against Muhammad for this long, but I'm afraid I don't think there is any way to actually get through to him - they really are as stubborn and incapable of change as you fear they are. I enjoyed debating them for a long while, and it was fun knocking around his poorly constructed arguments like a kitten batting a ball of yarn, I eventually realized that Muhammad is literally impossible to reason with. It doesn't matter how good an argument you make or how many times you tell him you don't believe "good and evil are facts" or that you aren't a "social Darwinist" or that you don't "reject subjectivity", Muhammad's only real option when they are continually backed into a mental corner is to either admit they are wrong or just accuse you of being one, two or all three over and over again - and he appears to be totally incapable of admitting he's wrong.

I suggest you, and everyone else reading this, put him on ignore. There is nothing to be gained from trying to reason with someone who isn't interested in listening to anything other than the voices in their own head.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

They stopped using the terms "spirit" and "soul" because they are ill-defined, vague terms. Human beings have found more appropriate/specific terms to describe mental processes. Vague terms don't do much good when trying to better understand how organisms and life exists in reality.

You have no objection to vagueness, you have an objection to that the existence of the spirit and soul which choose, is established as a matter of opinion, not fact. . You don't want this, because you want good and evil to be fact. Obviously when we attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit which chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, then automatically good and evil are matters of opinion as well.

That is the sole reason why social darwinism, atheism, materialism etc exists in the world today. There is no intellectual content to these positions, it is just a bad habit to want to make good and evil into a matter of fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Leibowde, I genuinely applaud your effort in staying on against Muhammad for this long, but I'm afraid I don't think there is any way to actually get through to him - they really are as stubborn and incapable of change as you fear they are. I enjoyed debating them for a long while, and it was fun knocking around his poorly constructed arguments like a kitten batting a ball of yarn, I eventually realized that Muhammad is literally impossible to reason with. It doesn't matter how good an argument you make or how many times you tell him you don't believe "good and evil are facts" or that you aren't a "social Darwinist" or that you don't "reject subjectivity", Muhammad's only real option when they are continually backed into a mental corner is to either admit they are wrong or just accuse you of being one, two or all three over and over again - and he appears to be totally incapable of admitting he's wrong.

I suggest you, and everyone else reading this, put him on ignore. There is nothing to be gained from trying to reason with someone who isn't interested in listening to anything other than the voices in their own head.

I agree. Thanks for this comment. I have tried to be respectful of him, but he always spews his prejudice around and personally insults people without the least bit of logical support. I think his hatred has gotten the best of him, and he is unable to get over his own stubbornness. I truly feel sorry for him. He's got to be a pretty lonely guy.

 

[leibowde84]

You have no objection to vagueness, you have an objection to that the existence of the spirit and soul which choose, is established as a matter of opinion, not fact. . You don't want this, because you want good and evil to be fact. Obviously when we attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit which chooses, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of opinion, then automatically good and evil are matters of opinion as well.

That is the sole reason why social darwinism, atheism, materialism etc exists in the world today. There is no intellectual content to these positions, it is just a bad habit to want to make good and evil into a matter of fact.

Nope. They are vague. I'll demonstrate. Apart from being the things that "choose", how do you define the "soul" and the "spirit"? Here is what "vague" means, just so I am sure you actually understand the term as it is used in the English language.

vague - "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't consider good and evil to be objective facts. I've explained this multiple times, so please stop blatantly lying. It makes you look like a hypocrite, and a very ignorant one at that. Morality is subjective, and survival for any organism cannot be objectively "good", because organisms usually survive at the detriment of others. So, how on earth could that be considered to be an objective "good". This goes for freedom as well. You merely provide your line of reasoning based on the childish notion of, "if you believe this, then you must believe that". It is idiotic to say the least.

Your confusion is due to your acceptance of false assumptions and your prejudice against science. I would urge you to actually listen to people instead of stubbornly sticking to false preconceived notions and reading into comments what isn't actually there. You are clinging so tightly to the false notion that you understand all "evolutionists" and it is preventing you from actually having meaningful conversations with people. I feel sorry for you.

You might call it stereotyping when I refer to all evolutionists, but actually it is also a very open way of debating, because then pointing out just a single evolutionist who is not that way would confound the argument. But I know you cannot point to any evolutionist who accepts freedom is real, and who accepts subjectivity is valid, because that is an inherently creationist view of things. Choosing is the mechanism of creation, of origins. The concept of choosing does not function without the spirit choosing, which means, the concept does not work without it being regarded as a matter of opinion what or who it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And you regard good and evil as fact, that has been shown to my satisfaction.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. They are vague. I'll demonstrate. Apart from being the things that "choose", how do you define the "soul" and the "spirit"? Here is what "vague" means, just so I am sure you actually understand the term as it is used in the English language.

vague - "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning."

Of course it is already a very meaningful definition of the word spirit to say that it does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does.

The word spirit can be used for any decision, and the word soul refers to the spirit of all decisions througout someone's life.

And I find the concept of the soul to be the most excellent accomodation for subjectivity. It basically means the same as what emotions somebody has had throughout their life. That people don't have a word for this means they simply ignore their emotions.

 

[leibowde84]

You might call it stereotyping when I refer to all evolutionists, but actually it is also a very open way of debating, because then pointing out just a single evolutionist who is not that way would confound the argument. But I know you cannot point to any evolutionist who accepts freedom is real, and who accepts subjectivity is valid, because that is an inherently creationist view of things. Choosing is the mechanism of creation, of origins. The concept of choosing does not function without the spirit choosing, which means, the concept does not work without it being regarded as a matter of opinion what or who it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And you regard good and evil as fact, that has been shown to my satisfaction.

So, you think that Pope Francis denies that freedom is real? Because, he is certainly an "evolutionist", as he has publicly come out and shared his belief in its accuracy.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it is already a very meaningful definition of the word spirit to say that it does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does.

The word spirit can be used for any decision, and the word soul refers to the spirit of all decisions througout someone's life.

So, you cannot provide the definition?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you think that Pope Francis denies that freedom is real? Because, he is certainly an "evolutionist", as he has publicly come out and shared his belief in its accuracy.

He very probably only accepted descendancy is a fact. I don't know the finer details of it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you cannot provide the definition?

That was the definition, it is a very meaningful definition. You don't have any word to refer to all emotions you had throughout your life, soul.

 

[leibowde84]

He very probably only accepted descendancy is a fact. I don't know the finer details of it.

Nope he said that "evolution is fact". Doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[leibowde84]

That was the definition, it is a very meaningful definition. You don't have any word to refer to all emotions you had throughout your life, soul.

Emotions seems sufficient.

 

[leibowde84]

He very probably only accepted descendancy is a fact. I don't know the finer details of it.

Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution, Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released in 2008)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Emotions seems sufficient.

Meaning you don't provide any accomodation for subjectivity at all, because you only accept objectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope he said that "evolution is fact". Doesn't get much clearer than that.

I assume that you are just not telling the truth.

 

[leibowde84]

Meaning you don't provide any accomodation for subjectivity at all, because you only accept objectivity.

Emotions are subjective. I thought you of all people would know that.