Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Shad]

I scanned through your reference it seems hopeleslly postmodernistic, what with emphasizing the "inaccuracy" of scientific theories.

So you reject modern idea, no my problem you wish to use archaic ideas as your foundation.

It's totally obvious that you don't read the sources you reference, and that these nonsense references are just part of your strategy of throwing anything and the kitchen sink at people who say goodness and evil are properly attributed to the spirit of the man doing the choosing.

I read it. Reference help support an argument. An argument with no references is just an assertion which all of your views have been thus far. Again not my problem

You reject subjectivity, and regard what is goodness and evil as fact. That is what your true position is here, and you will just say about anything to get away with that.

Nope, I understand the definition of words and how these words apply to objects. If you think a rock can have a subjective view it is your burden of proof to show rocks have a mind. Until you do so I will continue to dismiss your views as the incoherent nonsense that it is.

I exist, I have a mind thus I have subjective views. You point has been refuted.

Strawman and lying again. I have not made one statement regarding evil or good for months.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you reject modern idea, no my problem you wish to use archaic ideas as your foundation.

Which is of course how my definition of fact is the common discourse definition of fact, and your idea of fact is some fantasy invented by atheists, materialists and whatever in the last couple of centuries.

I read it. Reference help support an argument. An argument with no references is just an assertion which all of your views have been thus far. Again not my problem

Nope, I understand the definition of words and how these words apply to objects. If you think a rock can have a subjective view it is your burden of proof to show rocks have a mind. Until you do so I will continue to dismiss your views as the incoherent nonsense that it is.

I exist, I have a mind thus I have subjective views. You point has been refuted.

Strawman and lying again. I have not made one statement regarding evil or good for months.

Crystilization of rocks can turn out several different ways. You deny this obvious fact, for the reason that you are an atheist.

 

[Shad]

Which is of course how my definition of fact is the common discourse definition of fact, and your idea of fact is some fantasy invented by atheists, materialists and whatever in the last couple of centuries.

Your views are outdated since my source is philosophical comprised by more than just atheists. You never read my source otherwise you would of known Michael Scriven is a theist. Your point has been refuted.

Crystilization of rocks can turn out several different ways. You deny this obvious fact, for the reason that you are an atheist.

Which is a natural mechanic not a subjective choice of the rock. I only deny you flawed idea that rocks have a mind thus have subjective choices.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you don't have anything to support your claim, then? Just another unsubstantiated claim of "getting it from a scientist"? You can't provide any support for your argument?

Your buddy has just called the definition of fact he uses modern, which means that the common discourse definition of fact surely cannot be the same as it is not a modern invention.

And by the way you all argue together, you all repeatedly say words of arguing in concert, your view is his view. So that takes care of that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your views are outdated since my source is philosophical comprised by more than just atheists. You never read my source otherwise you would of known Michael Scriven is a theist. Your point has been refuted.

Which is a natural mechanic not a subjective choice of the rock. I only deny you flawed idea that rocks have a mind thus have subjective choices.

What is the natural mechanism behind the event that the crystilization turns out left instead of right?

The left in stead of right mechanism?

And if it turned out right, would the mechanism then be the right in stead of left mechanism?

What you say is total nonsense. You are but-naked, the emperor with no clothes, pontificating his scientific authority. You don't know what you are talking about, you deny freedom is real for the sole reason that you are an atheist.

I know all those theists who are bargaining with atheists. They are in communion with atheists. Creationists are the only real theists, who really unequivocally accept subjectivity is valid, who really believe, besides accepting objectivity. Subjectivity is simply a creationist concept.

 

[leibowde84]

Your buddy has just called the definition of fact he uses modern, which means that the common discourse definition of fact surely cannot be the same as it is not a modern invention.

And by the way you all argue together, you all repeatedly say words of arguing in concert, your view is his view. So that takes care of that.

How so? Why do you think that the definition of "fact" in common discourse is archaic?

My view is his view? I don't even know his view. That is a pretty silly assumption to make, as I don't even know Shad personally. While I have agreed with him many times in the past, his arguments do not represent me in any way, just as my arguments do not represent him in any way. To think otherwise is absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

What is the natural mechanism behind the event that the crystilization turns out left instead of right?

The left in stead of right mechanism?

And if it turned out right, would the mechanism then be the right in stead of left mechanism?

What you say is total nonsense. You are but-naked, the emperor with no clothes, pontificating his scientific authority. You don't know what you are talking about, you deny freedom is real for the sole reason that you are an atheist.

I know all those theists who are bargaining with atheists. They are in communion with atheists. Creationists are the only real theists, who really unequivocally accept subjectivity is valid, who really believe, besides accepting objectivity. Subjectivity is simply a creationist concept.

I've always wanted to ask you this. Why do you think that "subjectivity is simply a creationist concept" when, without exception, every single person in the world has their own subjective reality?

 

[Shad]

What is the natural mechanism behind the event that the crystilization turns out left instead of right?

The left in stead of right mechanism?

And if it turned out right, would the mechanism then be the right in stead of left mechanism?

What you say is total nonsense. You are but-naked, the emperor with no clothes, pontificating his scientific authority. You don't know what you are talking about, you deny freedom is real for the sole reason that you are an atheist.

I know all those theists who are bargaining with atheists. They are in communion with atheists. Creationists are the only real theists, who really unequivocally accept subjectivity is valid, who really believe, besides accepting objectivity. Subjectivity is simply a creationist concept.

Here are some sources to read, which you wont as you have yet to read anything I have linked.

Crystal Formation
How Crystals Form
crystal | physics | Britannica.com
American Chemical Society

So theists are in cahoots with atheist in order to get you.... You are paranoid while spouting tin foil hat nonsense. An alternative is that both educated theists and atheists understand natural science while you do not.

 

[Shad]

How so? Why do you think that the definition of "fact" in common discourse is archaic?

My view is his view? I don't even know his view. That is a pretty silly assumption to make, as I don't even know Shad personally. While I have agreed with him many times in the past, his arguments do not represent me in any way, just as my arguments do not represent him in any way. To think otherwise is absurd.

Our arguments at times agree, at least when it comes to non-god topics like natural science. However in his mind this means I must be conspiring with you against him. He has become paranoid of anyone rejecting his views be they theist or atheist.

We have entered the tin foil hat zone.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How so? Why do you think that the definition of "fact" in common discourse is archaic?

My view is his view? I don't even know his view. That is a pretty silly assumption to make, as I don't even know Shad personally. While I have agreed with him many times in the past, his arguments do not represent me in any way, just as my arguments do not represent him in any way. To think otherwise is absurd.

You have repeatedly made argument in reference to Shad, and all others here in the debate besides me. That's agreement.

The reason the definition for the word fact is archaic is because of the practical usefulness of the word. That practical usefulness is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, to make a representation 1 : 1 of something. Where is the mango tree? It is down by the river where it bends east. By these words one makes a 1:1 representation of the mango tree by the river where it bends east. And so the word fact was invented for this practical use.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Our arguments at times agree, at least when it comes to non-god topics like natural science. However in his mind this means I must be conspiring with you against him. He has become paranoid of anyone rejecting his views be they theist or atheist.

We have entered the tin foil hat zone.

You repeatedly explicitly refer to making arguments together, as if that would mean that I am wrong. But the only thing really holding you all together is that you all regard good and evil as a matter of fact issue.

 

[Shad]

You have repeatedly made argument in reference to Shad, and all others here in the debate besides me. That's agreement.

The reason the definition for the word fact is archaic is because of the practical usefulness of the word. That practical usefulness is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, to make a representation 1 : 1 of something. Where is the mango tree? It is down by the river where it bends east. By these words one makes a 1:1 representation of the mango tree by the river where it bends east. And so the word fact was invented for this practical use.

There is alternative. If both theists and atheist are in agreement against many of your point perhaps you should consider that you are in fact wrong. However your ego prevents you from even entertaining such an idea.

 

[leibowde84]

What is the natural mechanism behind the event that the crystilization turns out left instead of right?

The left in stead of right mechanism?

And if it turned out right, would the mechanism then be the right in stead of left mechanism?

What you say is total nonsense. You are but-naked, the emperor with no clothes, pontificating his scientific authority. You don't know what you are talking about, you deny freedom is real for the sole reason that you are an atheist.

I know all those theists who are bargaining with atheists. They are in communion with atheists. Creationists are the only real theists, who really unequivocally accept subjectivity is valid, who really believe, besides accepting objectivity. Subjectivity is simply a creationist concept.

It is very easy to find information about these mechanisms online. These are processes, so there is no "choice" or "consciousness" involved. The external/internal conditions of these environments determine how a crystal will form.

That being said, you are usually pretty hard-headed about scientific understanding, so I have to assume you aren't going to look into it. It seem that you are settled with the knowledge you currently have, which I cannot understand. How can you be so content when all of our scientific understanding is so limited? Don't you want to discover more about our physical world rather than just spouting off nonsense about "rejecting subjectivity" to anyone who challenges your false assumptions?

 

[Shad]

You repeatedly explicitly refer to making arguments together, as if that would mean that I am wrong. But the only thing really holding you all together is that you all regard good and evil as a matter of fact issue.

Strawman, never mentioned good nor evil in this thread.

More tinfoil hat nonsense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Here are some sources to read, which you wont as you have yet to read anything I have linked.

Crystal Formation
How Crystals Form
crystal | physics | Britannica.com
American Chemical Society

So theists are in cahoots with atheist in order to get you.... You are paranoid while spouting tin foil hat nonsense. An alternative is that both educated theists and atheists understand natural science while you do not.

Except of course you cannot describe anything turning out several different ways, neither can any atheist, nor can any of those theists you reference.

The reference you provided regarded free will as problematic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Strawman, never mentioned good nor evil in this thread.

More tinfoil hat nonsense.

You define choosing as sorting out the best result, using the knowledge for good and evil as sorting criteria.

This is the reason why you say no choosing occurs in nature at large, for the simple reason that no optimal result is being calculated in nature. While it is obvious fact that nature can turn out several diferent ways. The conclusion can only be that you regard good and evil as fact.

 

[leibowde84]

You have repeatedly made argument in reference to Shad

This is flawed logic, but I'll bite. Can you provide my comments where I've "made arguments in reference to Shad"? I do not believe I have ever done that, but I leave it open to you to provide actual support for this claim.

You have repeatedly made argument in reference to Shad, and all others here in the debate besides me. That's agreement.

The reason the definition for the word fact is archaic is because of the practical usefulness of the word. That practical usefulness is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, to make a representation 1 : 1 of something. Where is the mango tree? It is down by the river where it bends east. By these words one makes a 1:1 representation of the mango tree by the river where it bends east. And so the word fact was invented for this practical use.

Although your explanation is rather lacking, I think that the definition you are using isn't that far off from that used in common discourse today. Currently (and for quite some time), the term "fact" has been said to be "a statement that is indisputably accurate". When someone asks, "where is the tree?", saying "it is down by the river" is an indisputably accurate statement (assuming that there is a actually a tree by the river). I think your definition is just convoluted unnecessarily.

 

[leibowde84]

Except of course you cannot describe anything turning out several different ways, neither can any atheist, nor can any of those theists you reference.

The reference you provided regarded free will as problematic.

Which one?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is very easy to find information about these mechanisms online. These are processes, so there is no "choice" or "consciousness" involved. The external/internal conditions of these environments determine how a crystal will form.

That being said, you are usually pretty hard-headed about scientific understanding, so I have to assume you aren't going to look into it. It seem that you are settled with the knowledge you currently have, which I cannot understand. How can you be so content when all of our scientific understanding is so limited? Don't you want to discover more about our physical world rather than just spouting off nonsense about "rejecting subjectivity" to anyone who challenges your false assumptions?

Which means you are saying that there is no aspect to crystalization which can turn out several different ways.

And by the same token it also means that the processes in the brain can't turn out several different ways.

Which means of course that you deny freedom is real, and that you reject subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

You define choosing as sorting out the best result, using the knowledge for good and evil as sorting criteria.

This is the reason why you say no choosing occurs in nature at large, for the simple reason that no optimal result is being calculated in nature. While it is obvious fact that nature can turn out several diferent ways. The conclusion can only be that you regard good and evil as fact.

Man, this is an incoherent argument. From this you "conclude that good and evil are fact"? There is no "good" and/or "evil" in science. They are extremely vague, subjective terms. But, your stubbornness makes it impossible for you to see this. There is "cause and effect" in nature, which is why things turn out the way that they do. Simple as that.