Nontheist

[Windwalker]

All the errors and insufficiencies of the intelligence don't discourage me. The intelligence struggles mightily with the environmental conditions.

Exactly. Evolution is the Intelligent Designer. Or put another way, Evolution is God creating.

 

[osgart]

Exactly. Evolution is the Intelligent Designer. Or put another way, Evolution is God creating.

Only I would say forethought, and planning on the fly is not careful design. Also wouldn't use the word God to describe the agency that could be responsible for the creative process. But thanks for the reply.

 

[lukethethird]

Why does it need to "differ"? It's just more precise. Theism has been a significant human cognitive phenomenon since humans were human. In fact, it's a big part of what defines us as human.

That's because you seem to be unwilling to recognize or understand anything that isn't "objective". Theism is not about an object. And it is not an objective phenomenological experience. So you've been fighting to dismiss it as non-existence, haven't you? Not trying to recognize it as a very real part of the human experience of reality.

Isn't this desire to dismiss and disregard anything that's not "objectively evident" an expression of a kind of fear? Isn't 'scientism' just another method non-theists use to pretend that they understand and control their circumstances sufficiently so as not to fear, just like the inerrant Bible does for religious fundamentalists?

Why else would anyone be fighting so hard to dismiss any implication that existence contains or expresses forces and energies and consciousnesses that we can't understand or manipulate to our own advantage? Because that sure looks like a form of mystery that the philosophical materialists are fighting tooth and nail not to even acknowledge the possibility of. What are they so afraid of, do you think?

Well, you THINK you know. But as you should be very much aware, thinking you know (believing) and honestly knowing are not the same things, ... are they. And in fact, the vast majority of what we humans think we know to be so, is just our believing that it's so, because that gives us comfort, and a way to keep moving forward. It's why see this constant WORSHIP of "evidence". Because that's the intellectual currency we use to convince ourselves that we know what we can't honestly know.

Randomness is our conceptual ideation of phenomenon that we can't otherwise find a patter in, Don't make the mistake of "believing in" the truth of randomness just because we conceived of it in response to some observed phenomenon. That's 'scientism'.

"God" does not refer to a "thing". It's a word used to refer to a conceptual placeholder in people's minds for the great mystery of being. And that placeholder takes many, many different imagined forms; from the "beardy guy in the sky" to "the force that is with you" and everything in between. IT IS NOT A THING, it's a cognitive phenomenon. So stop asking for 'evidence' of it's thing-ness. The evidence of it is that we are all still discussing it and debating and contemplating it even after 200,000 years of discussing and debating it.

What I think constitutes "the world" is not relevant to anyone but me. And it isn;t much relevant to me, even. As I have no way of knowing what "the world" is. And neither do you. So our fighting about it is just a foolish, ego-driven waste of time.

We have no way of knowing this to be so. You clearly believe it, but what any of us believes is irrelevant to whatever the truth is. And we don't honestly know what the truth is. That's the big mystery of being ... what is it all, really? Why is it here? What is our place in it?

'God' is just an imaginary conceptual place-holder for the great mystery of being. You could grasp this if you would stop insisting that God be a "thing".

OK, not a thing, a sense of wonder and mystery, so why insist on calling it God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suggest the non-material (whatever that means) ideas are comprehensible as ideas, but are incoherent as part of what describes reality. Why? Because they lack evidence and credibility.

...

So if brains as parts of bodies as parts of the material universe are in reality, how can a brain then cause an idea that can't be descibed as a part of reality? What is your evidence for that and how is in effect an ontolgoical dual of reality and non-reality creditible? And as far as I can tell credible is a non-matreial idea in your mind as it relies on how you think and can't be observed. So credible is in effect without evidence just as God and both don't describe reality.

I think your model is irrational as it relies on in effect at least one non-mateial idea in part.
In other words do you have any evidence that you are ratiional in a matreial sense or is it just an idea?

 

[Nakosis]

So if brains as parts of bodies as parts of the material universe are in reality, how can a brain then cause an idea that can't be descibed as a part of reality?

That's a good question.
The answer is that experience is not the same as the language used to describe the experience.
Just like Mary's black and white room. All of the words used to describe the color red cannot equal the experience of seeing the color red.

The additional information that comes from the physical world is missing from Mary's brain.
And, in the reverse, seeing the color red does not mean you can describe the color red to the point that someone else is able to see the color red themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a good question.
The answer is that experience is not the same as the language used to describe the experience.
Just like Mary's black and white room. All of the words used to describe the color red cannot equal the experience of seeing the color red.

The additional information that comes from the physical world is missing from Mary's brain.
And, in the reverse, seeing the color red does not mean you can describe the color red to the point that someone else is able to see the color red themselves.

Yeah, you have to learn that non-physical doesn't mean God and all that, unless you believe in that. It just mean everything going on is not objective.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, you have to learn that non-physical doesn't mean God and all that, unless you believe in that. It just mean everything going on is not objective.

I don't have to learn anything about the non-physical until until somebody can come up with some verifiable evidence of it's existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't have to learn anything about the non-physical until until somebody can come up with some verifiable evidence of it's existence.

That one is a non-physical mental as relating to the mind as a norm is your mind, which can't be observed as external or verified for it's existence.

 

[Nakosis]

That one is a non-physical mental as relating to the mind as a norm is your mind, which can't be observed as external or verified for it's existence.

Exactly, so I win right?

 

[lukethethird]

Exactly. Evolution is the Intelligent Designer. Or put another way, Evolution is God creating.

Hollywood, I see, it's all coming together now.

 

[Windwalker]

Only I would say forethought, and planning on the fly is not careful design.

If the design is a system of adaptability, I'd say that is intelligent. To create a static design in a non-static universe, does not seem to exhibit much forethought, it would seem. It would be bound to break too easily.

Also wouldn't use the word God to describe the agency that could be responsible for the creative process.

Why not? Isn't the very nature of the Divine in action, creativity?

 

[Windwalker]

Hollywood, I see, it's all coming together now.

It's actual Michael Crichton writing that script. The movie is based on his book. As a science fiction writer, he has a great deal of valid insights, and in this particular case, it's spot on. "Life always finds a way". If you doubt that, look at evolution.

I'm just fond of Jeff Goldblum's delivery.

 

[F1fan]

So if brains as parts of bodies as parts of the material universe are in reality, how can a brain then cause an idea that can't be descibed as a part of reality?

Are you asking how Walt Disney can conceive the idea of a talking mouse that is often involved in mischief? Mickey Mouse exists as an idea in reality. There are no actual talking mice. There are images of Mickey Mouse. These are created by cartoonists. The cartoons are real, the talking mouse isn't.

What is your evidence for that and how is in effect an ontolgoical dual of reality and non-reality creditible?

You've never seen Mickey Mouse? Or you have and you think it's an actual mouse?

And as far as I can tell credible is a non-matreial idea in your mind as it relies on how you think and can't be observed. So credible is in effect without evidence just as God and both don't describe reality.

No, the word credible is a word with useful meaning, and applies when it can be argued and defended. If some overweight guy, with bad skin, and a terrible haircut claims to be the sexiest man alive, it is fair and arguable that his claim is NOT credible. Those who claim any number of gods exists yet can't explain hos it's true also make claims that are not credible. Any time someone mentions a god they are likely not stating a credible claim about reality. Why? A massive lack of evidence.

I think your model is irrational as it relies on in effect at least one non-mateial idea in part.

Yet you don't mention what it is, so I have option but to ignore this.

In other words do you have any evidence that you are ratiional in a matreial sense or is it just an idea?

Have I claimed any such thing? No. Do you know what fallacy this is? Straw man. Laugh at that.

 

[osgart]

If the design is a system of adaptability, I'd say that is intelligent. To create a static design in a non-static universe, does not seem to exhibit much forethought, it would seem. It would be bound to break too easily.

Why not? Isn't the very nature of the Divine in action, creativity?

I'm not so sure we are static.

I consider divine to be a grande plan full of perfection, I don't see anything divine going on in nature.

 

[lukethethird]

It's actual Michael Crichton writing that script. The movie is based on his book. As a science fiction writer, he has a great deal of valid insights, and in this particular case, it's spot on. "Life always finds a way". If you doubt that, look at evolution.

I'm just fond of Jeff Goldblum's delivery.

More species have gone extinct than exist today, so tell that to all the species that have gone extinct. If it's taken to mean life in general, the statement is vague, you can apply several meanings to it, so like I said, Hollywood.

 

[F1fan]

If the design is a system of adaptability, I'd say that is intelligent. To create a static design in a non-static universe, does not seem to exhibit much forethought, it would seem. It would be bound to break too easily.

If it had foresight why does it need to adapt? Static would suggest an intelliegnce got it right from the start. That systems have to adapt suggests a design that needs fixing. But of course we know that the dynamics in natural systems is driven by entropy.

Why not? Isn't the very nature of the Divine in action, creativity?

Cancer and birth defects are creative, I guess. They came about from a divine intelligence according to non-factual thinking.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not so sure we are static.

We are not static, and that is my point. You said planning on the fly is not intelligent. I would say on the contrary that it is more intelligent than forethought, which assumes the design is going to fixed, or static. Creating and adapting on the fly, takes creativity, which is a higher form of intelligence than preplanning. Thinking on your feet in other words, is much more intelligent than having a few billion years of preplanning.

I consider divine to be a grande plan full of perfection, I don't see anything divine going on in nature.

So do you see nature's abilities to adapt and change to survive in changing situations to be contrary to the nature of the Divine? Didn't God create nature? And isn't the balance of all these systems working together which supports and sustains life that very grand perfection? You don't see the Miracle of it all?

 

[Nakosis]

We are not static, and that is my point. You said planning on the fly is not intelligent. I would say on the contrary that it is more intelligent than forethought, which assumes the design is going to fixed, or static. Creating and adapting on the fly, takes creativity, which is a higher form of intelligence than preplanning. Thinking on your feet in other words, is much more intelligent than having a few billion years of preplanning.

So do you see nature's abilities to adapt and change to survive in changing situations to be contrary to the nature of the Divine? Didn't God create nature?

Yes well something like a 10,000 species a year go extinct because they didn't adapt. The odds for adapting for any species seems really stacked against them. Evolution seems more trial and error than design unless the designer really doesn't know what they are doing.

They estimate that 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. So if there is a "designer" they got it right .01% of the time.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not so sure we are static.

I consider divine to be a grande plan full of perfection, I don't see anything divine going on in nature.

So the divine isn't the intelligence you promote?

 

[F1fan]

Yes well something like a 10,000 species a year go extinct because they didn't adapt. The odds for adapting for any species seems really stacked against them. Evolution seems more trial and error than design unless the designer really doesn't know what they are doing.

They estimate that 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. So if there is a "designer" they got it right .01% of the time.

I keep asking about all these flaws in design, and what it tells us about an inteligence, and these are typically ignored or excused somehow. Those who want there to be an intelligence, and a divine, and a designer like thee ideas, they just can't explain how they make sense with the facts and data we have.