Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Deathbydefault]

No, he makes claim then challenges me to provide a source proving him wrong. I provide a source, he drops the crystal argument but repeats the same argument under a new topic. Crystals have choice. Magnetic fields have choice. He just changes the context word without realizing the sources counter the argument itself regardless of changing the context subject.

I have yet to produce a strawman as I am pointing out his terminology is in error. I address his arguments while he does not address mine. The only part I do not address is the opinion of agency since it is an opinion. Anyone can dismiss an opinion for being.... an opinion. Choice and decision are mind dependent outcomes that he conflates with a mind-independent outcome. This is begging the question since he is injecting his view of agency in to his "fact" claims based on his opinion view point

Dammit I read the wrong name again.
This is why I need glasses.

 

[Shad]

Dammit I read the wrong name again.
This is why I need glasses.

No problem. I do the same but have glasses. It happens.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A decision is a choice thus a mind dependent outcome. You are using the wrong word for it. My refusal to use your incorrect terminology is well founded and reasonable. Find a magnet field on a planet that exists without the planet have the properties necessary for one.

You are using no word for the event of making a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. You say that things in nature like crystilization can turn out several different ways, but you have no word for this particular event.

Of course you have no idea at all how things turn out several different ways in the universe. You denote the fact that freedom is real, for the reason that otherwise you have no credibility, but you have no idea about what the available options were in the history of the universe, and how it turned out the way it did, in stead of the other ways. You have no idea about sophisticated ways in which things can turn out several different ways or simple ways, your total knowledge about freedom is that it is real.

And then you proceed to talk about nature dictating and forcing as freedom. You deny freedom is real, and you reject subjectivity. You conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best option, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria, not in terms of spontaneity.

The only reason you are here is to compete objectivity against subjectivity, to the destruction of subjectivity, so you can regard good and evil as fact. That is why you have no religion to speak of, you have destroyed subjectivity for yourself, and you are trying to destroy subjectivity of others.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You are using no word for the event of making a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. You say that things in nature like crystilization can turn out several different ways, but you have no word for this particular event.

The word that can be used: Chance.

Of course you have no idea at all how things turn out several different ways in the universe. You denote the fact that freedom is real, for the reason that otherwise you have no credibility, but you have no idea about what the available options where in the history of the universe, and the way it turned out the way it did, in stead of the other ways. You have no idea about sophisticated ways in which things can turn out several different ways or simple ways, your total knowledge about freedom is that it is real.

For 1: Define "freedom". There are a few ways it can be used.
"without restrain"
"without subjugation"
ect. ect.

For 2: There's this cool thing called multiverse theory...
It can go way deeper than that link too.
Think of it this way, a universe that is exactly the same as ours all the way up until you choose cheese instead of beans for your taco.
Pretty crazy, and it can explore all of the possible options for the universe.
The number of alternate universes it can explain has not had a word created for it yet.

And then you proceed to talk about nature dictating and forcing as freedom. You deny freedom is real, and you reject subjectivity. You conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best option, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria, not in terms of spontaneity.

Broken record.
This has been refuted about a thousand times so I wont bother doing it again.
Saddest thing is, is that I'm not sure if that sentence is a hyperbole or not.

The only reason you are here is to compete objectivity against subjectivity, to the destruction of subjectivity, so you can regard good and evil as fact. That is why you have no religion to speak of, you have destroyed subjectivity for yourself, and you are trying to destroy subjectivity of others.

Wrong. The reason we're here is because they kinda feel sorry for you and I need entertainment.
Or maybe it's because you're annoying never ending bigot comments started to get on their nerves.
That's possible as well.

Good and evil are not factual.
You can factually believe something is good or evil.
But stating that something is evil or good is an opinion only.

Pretty sure we have our own reasons for not being religious, that you don't have the authority to decide.
I'm not religious because belief in a God is illogical and childish.
Subjectivity is whatever.
Objectivity is better.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The word that can be used: Chance.

So then:

Chance = the act of making a possible future the present or not, or to make an alternative future the present

People's body's and brains can turn out several different ways, therefore it is by chance that this occurs, as so defined.

Now you swapped the word choosing for the word chance, but the logic still stays the same. Where before there was the issue of what makes a decision turn it out the way it does, now there is the issue of what makes a chance turn out the way it does.

And the same logic still applies, what it is that makes a chance turn out the way it does is free per definition, because the chance can turn out either way. Facts operate by force, a fact is a model of something, the thing that is modelled is the cause forcing the way the model turns out as the effect, resulting in a 1 to 1 representation. You cannot impose the logic of being forced on what is free, that is a logical error of contradiction, force contradicts with freedom.

You are only here to protect your way of boosting your ego with knowledge about good and evil, and probably terrified what way your judgement will turn out about your own emotions, if this false ego judgement of yours based on regarding good and evil as fact falls away.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So then:

Chance = the act of making a possible future the present or not, or to make an alternative future the present

People's body's and brains can turn out several different ways, therefore it is by chance that this occurs, as so defined.

Now you swapped the word choosing for the word chance, but the logic still stays the same. Where before there was the issue of what makes a decision turn it out the way it does, now there is the issue of what makes a chance turn out the way it does.

And the same logic still applies, what it is that makes a chance turn out the way it does is free per definition, because the chance can turn out either way. Facts operate by force, a fact is a model of something, the thing that is modelled is the cause forcing the way the model turns out as the effect, resulting in a 1 to 1 representation. You cannot impose the logic of being forced on what is free, that is a logical error of contradiction, force contradicts with freedom.

You are only here to protect your way of boosting your ego with knowledge about good and evil, and probably terrified what way your judgement will turn out about your own emotions, if this false ego judgement of yours based on regarding good and evil as fact falls away.

There is no point in explaining anything to you as you just say the same crap.
You know what, let's reverse the tables here.

You reject science therefore you obviously reject advancements in the world.
You also obviously reject developments in medicine that happen to be saving lives.

You obviously hate children in Africa and kids with cancer getting treatment.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no point in explaining anything to you as you just say the same crap.
You know what, let's reverse the tables here.

You reject science therefore you obviously reject advancements in the world.
You also obviously reject developments in medicine that happen to be saving lives.

You obviously hate children in Africa and kids with cancer getting treatment.

You are delusional that you think you and the others have any argument whatsoever. You really deny freedom and really reject subjectivity. All the evidence points to that, now with the ridiculous chance thing again. It is what it is.

My understanding about subjectivity is correct, I have already verified it is logically valid and meaningful. You could only ever criticize it if you had advanced knowledge about how choosing works. But you don't even have basic knowledge about how things are chosen, your knowledge about it is fundamentally distorted.

And there is no chance in my opinion that the structure of common discourse is wrong. There is no chance we will find that the statement "the painting is beautiful" and common discourse statements like that in general, are found to be logically invalid. Common discourse has the same structure as creationism, as i have verified by deconstructing such common statements.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You are delusional that you think you and the others have any argument whatsoever. You really deny freedom and really reject subjectivity. All the evidence points to that, now with the ridiculous chance thing again. It is what it is.

My understanding about subjectivity is correct, I have already verified it is logically valid and meaningful. You could only ever criticize it if you had advanced knowledge about how choosing works. But you don't even have basic knowledge about how things are chosen, your knowledge about it is fundamentally distorted.

And there is no chance in my opinion that the structure of common discourse is wrong. There is no chance we will find that the statement "the painting is beautiful" and common discourse statements like that in general, are found to be logically invalid. Common discourse has the same structure as creationism, as i have verified by deconstructing such common statements.

And you hate children in Africa.

Kinda sucks when someone denies everything you say then claims you're a terrible person, doesn't it?
I wonder why anyone would ever do that to you.

 

[gnostic]

How can anyone who is incoherent most of the time, probably because English is second language, redefine political, social or scientific terms in any way he like?

Mohammad you have labelled everyone being "Social Darwinists", simply because they disagree with you, and everyone have outright rejected the label you have pinned on us. It is stupid, offensive and misleading.

You don't even understand the difference between science and philosophy, or between science and politics. Social Darwinism is a sociopolitical philosophy which have absolutely no bearing to evolution in biology.

Biology, and in particular evolutionary biology, have to do with DNA and genes, cells, biodiversity, therefore it is about genetics. It has nothing to do about choice, freedom or subjectivity, because it is irrelevant.

That you persist on your illogical stupid stance, only demonstrate your ignorance and deceitful behavior. You are exactly the sort of Muslim that others don't want to be associated with.

There are numbers of Muslims around in this forum, and not once have seen a single Muslim supporting your claims that those who rejected your opinions of subjectivity, freedom, or Social Darwinism.

And I have not seen any Muslim supporting what you think you know about biology, geology, and any other scientific subjects that you have contributes to this thread and other threads.

Their silence showed that they are embarrassed by what you have been saying to other members.

 

[Shad]

You are using no word for the event of making a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. You say that things in nature like crystilization can turn out several different ways, but you have no word for this particular event.

Outcome or result are suitable since neither has a dependence on the mind.

Of course you have no idea at all how things turn out several different ways in the universe. You denote the fact that freedom is real, for the reason that otherwise you have no credibility, but you have no idea about what the available options were in the history of the universe, and how it turned out the way it did, in stead of the other ways. You have no idea about sophisticated ways in which things can turn out several different ways or simple ways, your total knowledge about freedom is that it is real.

Strawman. Crystals, as per my source, can form different ways all according to probability and environmental parameters. You reject science when it proves your view of crystals formation is flawed.

I am not the one using a mind dependent words for a mechanic which has no mind

And then you proceed to talk about nature dictating and forcing as freedom. You deny freedom is real, and you reject subjectivity. You conceive of choosing in terms of sorting out the best option, using the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria, not in terms of spontaneity.

You asked for a source which shows how nature does dictate how crystals are former. The rest of your comment is a strawman since my source applied to crystals and crystals alone. I never said anything about good or evil.

The only reason you are here is to compete objectivity against subjectivity, to the destruction of subjectivity, so you can regard good and evil as fact. That is why you have no religion to speak of, you have destroyed subjectivity for yourself, and you are trying to destroy subjectivity of others.

Strawman again. If good and evil are fact then both exist as a thing or mechanic. I have not made a single claim that either are a thing nor mechanic.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Outcome or result are suitable since neither has a dependence on the mind.



Strawman. Crystals, as per my source, can form different ways all according to probability and environmental parameters.

I am not the one using a mind dependent word for a mechanic which has no mind



You asked for a source which shows how nature does dictate how crystals are former. The rest of your comment is a strawman since my source applied to crystals and crystals along. I never said anything about good or evil.



Strawman again. If god and evil are fact then both exist as a thing or mechanic. I have no made a single claim that either are a thing or mechanic.

Probably shouldn't bother arguing with him anymore.
Just start making false claims of him from some extremely illogical point of view.

So far he hates kids in Africa and he doesn't want children with cancer to get treatment.
I made both of those claims and just half-assed a invalid source.

Maybe he'll eventually realize that his logic isn't coherent, if it's used against him.

 

[Shad]

Probably shouldn't bother arguing with him anymore.
Just start making false claims of him from some extremely illogical point of view.

So far he hates kids in Africa and he doesn't want children with cancer to get treatment.
I made both of those claims and just half-assed a invalid source.

Maybe he'll eventually realize that his logic isn't coherent, if it's used against him.

I have no need to sink to his level. I can merely point out he has rejected information covering crystal formation since it counters the words he had used improperly. I have no need of making up claims as he has done.

I doubt he will realize anything. He holds to an ideology that would collapse if he even entertained the idea that he is wrong. He will defend the ideology tooth and nail.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I have no need to sink to his level. I can merely point out he has rejected information covering crystal formation since it counters the words he had used improperly. I have no need of making up claims as he has done.

I doubt he will realize anything. He holds to an ideology that would collapse if he even entertained the idea that he is wrong. He will defend the ideology tooth and nail.

Well I at least know what I am saying is false...
I agree he probably wont realize much, but hey, entertainment is entertainment.

So long as he gets as frustrated as some of us are, it's fair game.
I don't know about "sink to his level", just saying that he's more than earned this sort of treatment.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How can anyone who is incoherent most of the time, probably because English is second language, redefine political, social or scientific terms in any way he like?

Mohammad you have labelled everyone being "Social Darwinists", simply because they disagree with you, and everyone have outright rejected the label you have pinned on us. It is stupid, offensive and misleading.

You don't even understand the difference between science and philosophy, or between science and politics. Social Darwinism is a sociopolitical philosophy which have absolutely no bearing to evolution in biology.

Biology, and in particular evolutionary biology, have to do with DNA and genes, cells, biodiversity, therefore it is about genetics. It has nothing to do about choice, freedom or subjectivity, because it is irrelevant.

That you persist on your illogical stupid stance, only demonstrate your ignorance and deceitful behavior. You are exactly the sort of Muslim that others don't want to be associated with.

There are numbers of Muslims around in this forum, and not once have seen a single Muslim supporting your claims that those who rejected your opinions of subjectivity, freedom, or Social Darwinism.

And I have not seen any Muslim supporting what you think you know about biology, geology, and any other scientific subjects that you have contributes to this thread and other threads.

Their silence showed that they are embarrassed by what you have been saying to other members.

2 muslims on this forum explicitly said that good and evil are fact. It means they do not believe in God, choosing it, it means they propose to know as fact God exists, by measuring God according to the complexity of the universe and living organisms, forced to the conclusion God exists.

They are not muslims obviously, because they don't believe, they are just the same as evolutionists rejecting subjectivity altogether. Evolutionists say love and hate are fact, these muslims say God is factas well. That is the same faulty principle.

It is just a spirit of the times thing, materialism is very popular, and everybody is tempted to make good and evil into fact, because it provides a boost to the ego.

Gnostic, you reject subjectivity, and deny freedom is real. This is very evident by your lack of any theory describing how things are chosen in the universe. You deny freedom is real, because you define choosing as sorting out the best result, using knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria. A sorting algorithm is forced, the outcome is predetermined by the available data to sort, and the sorting criteria. Your idea about choosing distorts all knowledge about freedom, it is only useful for providing you an ego boost.

That is simply the truth of it, and no matter you all say it is wrong. You all got no argument, you all got no idea about freedom, you all got no idea about subjectivity, you all got nothing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well I at least know what I am saying is false...
I agree he probably wont realize much, but hey, entertainment is entertainment.

So long as he gets as frustrated as some of us are, it's fair game.
I don't know about "sink to his level", just saying that he's more than earned this sort of treatment.

From the start evolutionists were intellectual thugs, bulldogs, just set on destroying any reference to God the holy spirit, and the human spirit, trying to destroy subjectivity altogether. That is the main theme in Darwin's work, a deliberate and consistent program to get rid of belief, religion, and replace it with science. That is why later he wrote a book on emotions. He wanted everything to fall under science, including morality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Outcome or result are suitable since neither has a dependence on the mind.

That makes talking about it gibberish, which is why your knowledge about how things can turn out several different ways in the universe can never develop to any sophistication.

And again, just swapping choosing for outcome does not change the logic.

What is it that made the outcome turn out the way it did, in stead of the other way?

Logic then dictates that the issue of what it is that made the outcome turn out the way it did, cannot be established as fact. Because facts operate by force, a fact is the forced effect of what the fact models. And what made the outcome turn out the way it does is free, so one cannot impose the logic of being forced on it, which is part of fact.

So then still we would have a validation of subjectivity, in regards to what makes an outcome turn out the way it does. One can choose about what it is, resulting in an opinion. And this is of course what you are against, subjectivity, opinion, as fully valid besides fact. That is why you have such crummy ideas about how things can turn out several different ways in the universe, you need your ideas about it to be rubbish, in order to avoid validating subjectivity, so you can keep on regarding good and evil as fact in stead of opinion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

From the start evolutionists were intellectual thugs, bulldogs, just set on destroying any reference to God the holy spirit, and the human spirit, trying to destroy subjectivity altogether. That is the main theme in Darwin's work, a deliberate and consistent program to get rid of belief, religion, and replace it with science. That is why later he wrote a book on emotions. He wanted everything to fall under science, including morality.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Shad]

That makes talking about it gibberish, which is why your knowledge about how things can turn out several different ways in the universe can never develop to any sophistication.

No son, this is the proper words to use for mind independent results

And again, just swapping choosing for outcome does not change the logic.

Nope it is proper use of words son. It changes the logic since the word you use are mind dependent. In order for the logic to be sound you must provide evidence of this mind and can not call it an opinion.

What is it that made the outcome turn out the way it did, in stead of the other way?

Environmental conditions and characteristics of the object in question

Logic then dictates that the issue of what it is that made the outcome turn out the way it did, cannot be established as fact.

False since there are already models which show how various objects form

Because facts operate by force, a fact is the forced effect of what the fact models. And what made the outcome turn out the way it does is free, so one cannot impose the logic of being forced on it, which is part of fact.

Which is completely fine for natural mechanics and nature mind independent objects as per crystals

So then still we would have a validation of subjectivity, in regards to what makes an outcome turn out the way it does. One can choose about what it is, resulting in an opinion. And this is of course what you are against, subjectivity, opinion, as fully valid besides fact. That is why you have such crummy ideas about how things can turn out several different ways in the universe, you need your ideas about it to be rubbish, in order to avoid validating subjectivity, so you can keep on regarding good and evil as fact in stead of opinion.

No as subjectivity is mind dependent. Natural mechanics have no opinion. The rest of your comment is a strawman and your displaying you ignorance and rejecting of science. Logic must be sound not just valid, validity is useless without soundness. You again are attributing mind dependent ideas to mind independent objects. These ideas are not "crummy" but taught in every credible university on the planet and are well established. Your view on the other hand is only a opinion and a flawed one. Never said anything about good and evil, strawman

You talk a lot about logic but seem unable to avoid logical fallacious

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Environmental conditions and characteristics of the object in question

But..... that...... is........ cause...... and...... effect........ logic. the logic of being forced. You are saying the object could have turned out a different way, if the environment had been different, or if the object itself had been different. That does not describe that the object can turn out several different ways, it simply defers the freedom from the object to that the environment or characteristic of the object can turn out several different ways.

So having once again seen that you have no idea whatsoever about how any freedom works (and by this I mean that you know less about it than a 5 year old, that you have actually distorted the knowledge about it that comes naturally to all people), we are back to the alreayd established fact that you deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

But..... that...... is........ cause...... and...... effect........ logic. the logic of being forced. You are saying the object could have turned out a different way, if the environment had been different, or if the object itself had been different. That does not describe that the object can turn out several different ways, it simply defers the freedom from the object to that the environment or characteristic of the object can turn out several different ways.

So having once again seen that you have no idea whatsoever about how any freedom works (and by this I mean that you know less about it than a 5 year old, that you have actually distorted the knowledge about it that comes naturally to all people), we are back to the alreayd established fact that you deny freedom is real, and reject subjectivity.

Well at least he doesn't hate children in Africa...