Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

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.

Dictionary definitions simply suck. "Indisputably accurate" is a nonsense authoritarian definition of fact.

When a statement is proposed as fact it is said to model something 1 to 1. Whether the asserted fact is accurate or not remains to be seen.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Can you explain how you get from here: "Which means you are saying that there is no aspect to crystalization which can turn out several different ways."
To here: "And by the same token it also means that the processes in the brain can't turn out several different ways."

Why would the brain be limited to the same restrictions as crystals?

Things in nature are subject to "cause and effect". Things happen naturally because of other things happening before them. With brains there is subjective consciousness. So, that is different.

 

[leibowde84]

Dictionary definitions simply suck. "Indisputably accurate" is a nonsense authoritarian definition of fact.

When a statement is proposed as fact it is said to model something 1 to 1. Whether the asserted fact is accurate or not remains to be seen.

That would merely be a claimed fact. If a fact is not accurate, then it is merely a claimed or mislabeled "fact".

Your main lacking when it comes to debate is your tendency to make claims without any kind of support. Here is a great example: ""Indisputably accurate" is a nonsense authoritarian definition of fact." You provide absolutely no support and make claims as if they are "fact" (no pun intended). These are just meaningless statements, as claims without support are next to garbage in worth.

 

[Shad]

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

Only in natural mechanics, an idea that is over your head.

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.

There are plenty of model that explain natural mechanics. Again talking about what you do not understand. My links on crystals proves this and refutes your view of crystals. That is not a choice by anything. A rock has no mind thus has no choice.

Strawman, never mentioned good nor evil.

Amusing fallacious arguments you have in order to cover up your own ignorance of subjects you bring up.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Did either of us make this claim, or are you just making this up? If so, please cite the comment so it doesn't seem like you are just being dishonest.

 

[Shad]

Dictionary definitions simply suck. "Indisputably accurate" is a nonsense authoritarian definition of fact.

When a statement is proposed as fact it is said to model something 1 to 1. Whether the asserted fact is accurate or not remains to be seen.

Hilarious, so dictionaries and definitions of words are useless? Rather you have no idea what the words you use actually means so you dismiss centuries of language development due to your inability to use words properly. You might as well start saying blah blah fart pop bang if words are useless.

A statement, as in a model, is an explanation of facts. You just agreed with me but didn't realize this since you are incompetent.

 

[Shad]

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.

Free willing does not apply to crystals since free will is an aspect of the mind. Rocks and crystals have no mind.... More incoherent nonsense

 

[JM2C]

Funny how you said nuclear fission is a "proven theory" and then say it's "not a theory". That's a contradiction. Something can't be a proven theory if it's not a theory in the first place. You also have a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. That's why you still have the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity being called theories even though they have massive evidence supporting them.

A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it, right? Can you dispute nuclear fission? NO, because it was proven already. Did it break the law of conservation of mass and energy? NO! Did it break the 1st law of thermodynamics? NO! So, it qualifies as a proven scientific theory based on these two laws, right?

The Kinetic theory of gases explains Boyle’s law. Nuclear fission explains the law of conservation of mass and energy and the 1st law of thermodynamics. Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains the laws of gravity.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been expressed in many ways. Its first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824.

Can you dispute the ToE and macroevolution? YES, because there is no law that governs ToE and macroevolution. In fact, they both break the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy therefore they should not qualify as scientific theories.

The law is telling us what happens while theory is telling us why and how. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is telling us that things breaks because of entropy while the ToE and macroevolution is telling us that everything evolved from inorganic matter to the first single-celled organism. No new genetic information can be added to a genome. Genetic mutation is not a mechanism that can add new genetic information to a genome.

“I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” -Dr. Spetner

 

[JM2C]

For future reference, could you please quote all of my responses in a single post, JM2C? Having to go through and collect all of your responses in many different posts is tedious.

I will not do that.

 

[JM2C]

So the round Earth model is an ideology if I try to prove that it is a fact?

You don’t have to force people to believe it as a fact because it is a fact or proven fact while an ideology is not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

I know that good and evil are not "scientific" fact. It's easy for me because I accept creationism, so I can just attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

But you and Shad are not a creationists, and you have previously plainly said that for some issues it is "fact" what is good and evil.

 

[JM2C]

Theories always remain theories. They don't graduate to laws or "facts." Theories are comprised of facts.

Theories are based on laws. If there are no laws to base your theories, how can you even begin to hypothesize?

 

[leibowde84]

I know that good and evil are not "scientific" fact. It's easy for me because I accept creationism, so I can just attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

But you and Shad are not a creationists, and you have previously plainly said that for some issues it is "fact" what is good and evil.

That is a blatant lie. Please provide the comment where I said that good and evil are "fact" or stop blatantly lying about what I have claimed in the past. If you can't cite the comment, show at least a bit of decency and stop making stuff up.

I do not think that good and evil are facts, and I never have. You are arguing with yourself on that one.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you explain how you get from here: "Which means you are saying that there is no aspect to crystalization which can turn out several different ways."
To here: "And by the same token it also means that the processes in the brain can't turn out several different ways."

Why would the brain be limited to the same restrictions as crystals?

Things in nature are subject to "cause and effect". Things happen naturally because of other things happening before them. With brains there is subjective consciousness. So, that is different.

So it means according to you the entire universe is forced, except what happens in skulls, that can turn out several different ways?

In my opinion it is just whack nonsense, not really worth addressing. It is merely expressive of your habit to want to make good and evil into fact.

 

[leibowde84]

I know that good and evil are not "scientific" fact. It's easy for me because I accept creationism, so I can just attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

But you and Shad are not a creationists, and you have previously plainly said that for some issues it is "fact" what is good and evil.

Btw, how can you claim that the goodness or evilness of a man exists and can be "attributed" to something if you think that they are subjective and not factual/objective?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is a blatant lie. Please provide the comment where I said that good and evil are "fact" or stop blatantly lying about what I have claimed in the past. If you can't cite the comment, show at least a bit of decency and stop making stuff up.

I do not think that good and evil are facts, and I never have. You are arguing with yourself on that one.

Make it worth my while then I will find the quote of you saying that for some issues you consider goodness and evil a fact. Like get lost from religious forums altogether, when I produce the quote where you make such statements.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Btw, how can you claim that the goodness or evilness of a man exists and can be "attributed" to something if you think that they are subjective and not factual/objective?

That is because the existence, of the spirit which I attibute the goodness and evil to, is a matter of opinion. That's how that works. You plainly don't understand anything whatsoever about subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

So it means according to you the entire universe is forced, except what happens in skulls, that can turn out several different ways?

In my opinion it is just whack nonsense, not really worth addressing. It is merely expressive of your habit to want to make good and evil into fact.

Since I don't believe that good and evil are facts, and that they are, instead, subjective realities, how does your point make any sense? Or are you just being dishonest again? It seems that most of the time you are just arguing with yourself, assuming that people think a certain way without supporting evidence.

The Universe has been shown to be determined by cause and effect. Certain things happen because they are caused by other things that happened before it. If you can disprove this somehow, I would like to hear it. But, keep in mind, claims that this view is "evil" or "wrong" or "a rejection of subjectivity" do not help your cause, as they are nothing but empty claims. You have to provide substantiation to make an argument meaningful in the least.

 

[leibowde84]

That is because the existence, of the spirit which I attibute the goodness and evil to, is a matter of opinion. That's how that works. You plainly don't understand anything whatsoever about subjectivity.

Apparently neither do you. I didn't ask about the spirit. I asked, if good and evil do not exist objectively (apart from subjective consciousness), how can any person be considered objectively "good" or "evil" in the first place? How can the spirit "choose" something that isn't defined in any meaningful way objectively? If "good" and "evil" are subjective then they are a matter of opinion necessarily. So, then, how can you judge a person as "good" or "evil" in any meaningful way?

 

[Deathbydefault]

You must remember something here.
"Good, Evil, Pure, Beautiful, Ugly, Bad"
They are only identity words.

"God is pure and just".
Opinion.
"[name] thinks God is pure and just"
Fact.

Nothing can be factually "good" or "evil".
Even if God were to say, "Satan is evil".
Still an opinion.

#SecondGrade

I'm getting deja'vu from saying this....