hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
Logic presupposes language; actually it is language rationalising its own relationship with the world of experience and phenomena. IMO logic is the worst possible place to find "God", if this "God" is to be the cause of the universe (as in ID) and not just an element of man's symbolical construction.
Unless you believe that language is God-Given.
Pole
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
elder,
You really didnt answer my question, although you agree that logic is needed to argue, you fail to aknowledge how logic is derived from a world of matter energy and motion?
Are you making ground for committing the relativist fallacy now? I'm trying to think of what other point you may want to make (I hope you do make it finally). Ok, so perhaps you want to relativise the popular forms of logic? And then you may want to question them just like Eucledian geometry was questioned by Rieman or Lobaczewski?
And once you suggest there are a number of possible systems of logics, what next? How exactly does that help you to show that the Intelligent Design theory is not out of keeping with its own methodology and premises? What is your point anyway?
As I said above, whichever system of logics or reasoning you choose, you have to be honest about your methodology. Otherwise you end up lying, pretending and - most pathetically - relativising everything. If you go for mysticism - fine, but be honest about it and just dont tell me it's science anymore.
Cheers,
Pole
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
Maybe that's the major difference between the "believer" and the "unbeliever". Believers don't need external pharmacology to induce such a mind-state
I honestly believe believing or not believing is linked to the biology of the brain. Objectively speaking of course there's no necessity to believe, I believe .
Pole
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
ellderwho,
Pole: Also you don't have any proof so you make up a situation in which there is one and try to discredit funkyderek for not accepting non-existing proof. This is a pathetic line of reasoning. Admit it.
Elder: You lost me here.
I'm not sure how I misrepresented your position, but if I did, could you explain it to me?
Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?
I can only speak for myself. For me it's all about being honest about the method of "knowing things" (a methodology). The problem I have with most people giving "logical" or "scientific" evidence of the existence of God is that they tend to be methodological opportunists. When it suits their needs they accept different bits and pieces of mutually exclusive methodologies.
As it has been shown a number of times on this thread, the Intelligent Design thing is a point in case. On the one hand it depends heavily on the assertion that complex entities require an even more complex creator. This of course doesn't appply to the creator himself who is free from this necessity. Why? Because he's unlike anything we have ever seen/experienced in the Universe. How do we know he is different? We don't, but once we believe it's simple to imagine he must be different. Now, what has happened to the natural necessity that the Intelligent Design theory seems to stem from? Why did it get replaced with a metaphysical necessity? It's a mix-up of methodologies. You can prove anything using the deus ex machina construct.
Pole
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
elderwho,
In your response to Derek, you've committed at least two logical fallacies while claiming to be logical:
Since, as I said before all the facts are not known. Since you cannot know all the facts it is illogical to say there is no God. IMHO its more honest to say there is not sufficient evidence.(for God)
That's a classic burden-of-proof fallacy.
If you stumbled across a proof that proved that God existed would you be able to accept it. Does your predispostion allow you to entertain the thought? My point, you maybe hostile to any proof.
And here we go with an ad hominem one. Also you don't have any proof so you make up a situation in which there is one and try to discredit funkyderek for not accepting non-existing proof. This is a pathetic line of reasoning. Admit it.
Actually I've learned a few things from Derek's posts largely thanks to his painfully honest predisposition.
Pole
i got into a debate with 2 other friends (one a mormon and the other jw, i'm rc) about the blood transfusion issue.
the jw friend cited: genesis 9:4,16 leviticus 7:26,27 & 17:14 acts 15:28,29 & 21:25
i cannot for the life of me see how anyone can read those and honestly beleve that what was ment was to reject blood to save life!
Two very good posts by Narkissos:
1) The apostolic decision was not universally applicable for Christians:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/84794/1397053/post.ashx#1397053
2) Leviticus makes fat as holy as blood for all generations to come. Does that mean we shouldn't use fat either?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/84794/1397417/post.ashx#1397417
Pole
i remember mine did, way back in the early- to mid-80's.
it was always funny to all of a sudden hear a trucker hollering out the f-word in the middle of the service meeting!
man, if could only imagine the deer-in-the-headlights look of panic in the eyes of the elders.
It did happen a few times at the old Kingdom Hall where I attended with my moter in the late 1980s.
DEEEMONZZZ....
Pole
what a noble theme to the instruction talk tonight er this week.. emphasizing jesus' roles as high priest and head of the congregation .
now you'd think the information the talk is based on would emphasize jesus' roles right?
*** be p. 277 the message we must proclaim ***.
provided through "the faithful and discreet slave.
This must be the most frequently used phrase in the KM meetings.
Pole
the voter turnout for the 2004 us presidential election was 60.7% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a10492-2005jan14.html).
despite being threatened by terrorists, iraq's voter turnout was much greater than the last us voter turnout!
i'd say it was a far greater success than expected!
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
Great points zen!!!
Yeah, how about the dumb-design theory?
My favourite example of is the mix-up of the digestive and the respiratory systems. God - the Great Designer Created humans but he didn't care to separate the two systems. Now, I wonder what the thousands of people who have choked to death on chicken bones would have to say about the so called "Intelligent Design".
Same goes for the location of the eyeballs. They are located deep in the skull so that nothing can hurt you. Except for a pointed stick, right? Damn it. The Dumb Designer screwed it up again!
There are thousands and thousands of examples in Nature of screwed up biological defence systems.
Pole
