Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. Again being dishonest or just illogical. A term being vague in no way means that something doesn't exist. I even provided the meaning of the term vague for your reference.

Obviously you just write nonsense whatever, and then you try to backtrack on it.

 

[leibowde84]

It is about origins. And as far as I know the pope correctly conceives of creation as origins, for species and anything else.

Nope. He clearly stated that evolution is the cause for the diversion of species. How evolution was initiated with the first life forms is a completely different issue.

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously you just write nonsense whatever, and then you try to backtrack on it.

Stubbornness in action again.

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously you just write nonsense whatever, and then you try to backtrack on it.

Why would you think that a person pointing out that the definition of a term is vague would necessarily mean that person thinks something doesn't exist.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. He clearly stated that evolution is the cause for the diversion of species. How evolution was initiated with the first life forms is a completely different issue.

No the pope believes the diversity of species is a result of God's choosing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would you think that a person pointing out that the definition of a term is vague would necessarily mean that person thinks something doesn't exist.

vague, ill-defined, something else is better....

 

[leibowde84]

No the pope believes the diversity of species is a result of God's choosing.

Please provide the quote that states this. Or are you just making this up to?

 

[leibowde84]

vague, ill-defined, something else is better....

Why would the request for more specific terms mean that I don't believe in the soul?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would the request for more specific terms mean that I don't believe in the soul?

You called the concept of the soul vague, ill-defined, not appropiate, and something else better. And besides you also rejected regarding the existence of the soul as a matter of opinion. That is of course the main thing. You will never accept regarding the existence of the soul or spirit choosing as a matter of opinion, because that automatically makes good and evil a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please provide the quote that states this. Or are you just making this up to?

I am just assuming it yes, and I am not about to go research it. The pope regards penguins and elephants as creations, and that God did the creating.

 

[leibowde84]

You called the concept of the soul vague, ill-defined, not appropiate, and something else better. And besides you also rejected regarding the existence of the soul as a matter of opinion. That is of course the main thing. You will never accept regarding the existence of the soul or spirit choosing as a matter of opinion, because that automatically makes good and evil a matter of opinion.

Good and evil is a matter of opinion. I've said that multiple times. That is my belief.

 

[leibowde84]

I am just assuming it yes, and I am not about to go research it. The pope regards penguins and elephants as creations, and that God did the creating.

Lol. That is literally the definition of stubborness.

 

[leibowde84]

I am just assuming it yes, and I am not about to go research it. The pope regards penguins and elephants as creations, and that God did the creating.

He believes that God initiated the process of evolution and evolution took care of the rest.

 

[leibowde84]

I am just assuming it yes, and I am not about to go research it. The pope regards penguins and elephants as creations, and that God did the creating.

I actually agree with him.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Good and evil is a matter of opinion. I've said that multiple times. That is my belief.

The only way to make good and evil into a matter of opinion is to ground them in a being the existence of which is opinion. That would be the obvious solution to making good and evil into a matter of opinion, attribute the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, and then regarding the existence of the spirit as a matter of opinion. But you have rejected that about a zillion times. You just say things like this, and that "emotions are subjective" as an instinctive reaction to safeguard your practice of regarding good and evil as fact. The actual conceptual scheme you use is that choosing is to sort out an optimal result, where the facts about good and evil act as sorting criteria.

 

[leibowde84]

The only way to make good and evil into a matter of opinion is to ground them in a being the existence of which is opinion. That would be the obvious solution to making good and evil into a matter of opinion, attribute the goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, and then regarding the existence of the spirit as a matter of opinion. But you have rejected that about a zillion times. You just say things like this, and that "emotions are subjective" as an instinctive reaction to safeguard your practice of regarding good and evil as fact. The actual conceptual scheme you use is that choosing is to sort out an optimal result, where the facts about good and evil act as sorting criteria.

Attributing good and evil to a specific being makes it objective. If God defines morality, then morality is objective, as it exists apart from human consciousness.

 

[leibowde84]

You called the concept of the soul vague, ill-defined, not appropiate, and something else better. And besides you also rejected regarding the existence of the soul as a matter of opinion. That is of course the main thing. You will never accept regarding the existence of the soul or spirit choosing as a matter of opinion, because that automatically makes good and evil a matter of opinion.

"Good and evil" are a matter of opinion. I agree.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Attributing good and evil to a specific being makes it objective. If God defines morality, then morality is objective, as it exists apart from human consciousness.

You can provide many different meanings to the word objective, but the meaning that is practically useful in science and most common discourse, is to make a model of something. Evidence forces to produce a 1 to 1 model of what is evidenced. It is not objective in this sense of the word.

We can see as fact that decisions are made, but the issue of what makes any decision turn out the way it does will always be a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Good and evil" are a matter of opinion. I agree.

You agree that is sounds good, you don't actually agree with the logic involved of choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

 

[Shad]

"sentience" and "abiliy to choose" is just your vague way of saying calculating an optimum. An electron cannot calculate the optimal position around an atom, therefore the position of an electron cannot be chosen, is what you are saying.

If X can turn out A or B, and it turns out B, then you would not call it a decision. You would call it randomness, or chance. You simply do not have a particular word for this act where one of many options comes to be the present. Or you would say it is an "event", it 'happens", but the fact that there are several ways in which it can turn out, and one is made the present, does not make it a decision for you.

Nope sentience is a defined term, look it up. To be able to choose or decide anything the object in question must be capable of thought and control of itself. A rock is not capable of either. A rock can not go up a hill by choice as a human can thus it has no choice but to do what it's environment and nature dictates. A human can go uphill, downhill, not move or just across at the same height.

The rest of your comment is incoherent rhetoric as if there is a choice between A and B both are still a choice. However since you are capable of mind reading I am sure your post is spot on. I will add it to the list of amazing abilities you have such as redefining terms, faulty logic and spouting babble instead of responding directly to people's comments.