User Tag List

First 10181920212230 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #191
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default



    Who could hate this? *pats on the head and says "there, there"*

  2. #192
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy."
    Gosh, you never quit do you.
    The universe, is a thread, everything we know, is connected.
    The human mind is part of the universe, wether you consider we have some sort of magical soul or just a physical brain.
    Therefore philosophy only applies to human life, not to the understanding of the mechanics of the universe.
    The metaphysical by its name is misleading. If the metaphysical uses relative tools to analyse a system which its a part of, it's NOT metaphysical, it's just philosophical.
    About the question of a metaphysical god, once again, the creation of a thing, take a universe, can be considered as beyond the thing if the creator doesn't interfere with the universe it created.
    In the case of ID, the god in question obviously didn't just create the universe but intervened.
    Again and again and again, you don't understand things as a inter related structure but as discrete elements. Not a particulary striking example of ... (fill the blank using some non abrasive words)

    This is really becoming extremely boring.

    [/B]
    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    I'm not insulted, I am amused. To a large degree, I've been trying to make complex points by using simple analogies. I've also been a little sloppy in the way I framed my points. You have misinterpreted that as a weak understanding of "science, logics, and mathematics."
    And I'm getting more and more bored. Complexity is about constructing complex things, which you never did, you just take discrete elements and show us how they never fit in a system.

    ps: yeah, the cosmology thing, give it to me.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  3. #193
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    That's the accepted definition of metaphysics - I posted the link. Accepted definitions are stubborn things. Sorry if that's boring to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    And I'm getting more and more bored. Complexity is about constructing complex things, which you never did, you just take discrete elements and show us how they never fit in a system.
    And quickly you're back to the ranting.

    *"there, there"*

  4. #194
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    That's the accepted definition of metaphysics - I posted the link. Accepted definitions are stubborn things. Sorry if that's boring to you.



    And quickly you're back to the ranting.

    *"there, there"*
    Well see the arguments instead of reading the ranting. It's just my personnality.
    And I didn't read half of it to say the truth, because I just know what they say. But they are still wrong. Metaphysics are not logically consistent. It needs to be redefined or simply deleted as a word or used as a way of speaking.
    It only applies to a creator that never interfered with its creation, and even then can be discussed.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  5. #195
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    That about sums up the dialog. You half read or don't read what I'm writing, and respond with unrelated comments mixed with rants.

    In the case of darwinism (a theory of part of the "interrelated structure" as you call it), its flaws are found by looking at the details.

    ID uses scientific method to evaluate details of life (whether those details suggest a directed process or not). Metaphysics asks questions about who the designer might be and what "he" might be like.

  6. #196
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    That about sums up the dialog. You half read or don't read what I'm writing, and respond with unrelated comments mixed with rants.
    I dont have much patience with clich.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    In the case of darwinism (a theory of part of the "interrelated structure" as you call it), its flaws are found by looking at the details.
    Step back, take a look at history, everytime the ID scientists gave an example of something that was supposed to prove that darwinism for example wasn't congruent with this or that species. They were proven wrong in the end. Like in the case of the peppered moth, the eye, and so on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    ID uses scientific method to evaluate details of life (whether those details suggest a directed process or not). Metaphysics asks questions about who the designer might be and what "he" might be like.
    ...
    Once mr god interacts with the universe. His 'metaphysicality' can be questionned to an extent. Just as a measurement tool interferes with the system it observes.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  7. #197
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    I dont have much patience with clich.
    And yet you are so fluent in using it.


    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    Step back, take a look at history, everytime the ID scientists gave an example of something that was supposed to prove that darwinism for example wasn't congruent with this or that species. They were proven wrong in the end. Like in the case of the peppered moth, the eye, and so on.
    False.

    Remember that link I posted three times. These neo-neo-darwinists are just now acknowledging some of the flaws that the IDs have been pointing out for some time now. Ironically, the comments include an ID dig and a mis-association of ID with creationism.

  8. #198
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  9. #199
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    From your article:

    "then you have to accept that vast chasms of adaptation can be traversed by the slow plodding accumulation of inherited changes. Natural selection can travel huge distances if given time."

    This statement is offered as fact when it is not. The possible "chasm" sizes are much smaller than are needed to get from a simple form to the next viable more complex form.

    "One favourite example is the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like tail that propels the beast along. It looks beautifully designed, with a drive shaft and motor made up of over 40 proteins. If you take one away, the flagellum stops working. To ID proponents, this "irreducible complexity" means it cannot have evolved."

    Just because the article uses a mocking tone does not mean the author has proved his point. He hasn't.

    Both articles deal with examples of how a body of DNA reflected changes through mutations and natural selection without any real increase in complexity. Neither deal with how new, useful information came into existence to allow mutations and natural selection to transition one species to a new more complex species.

    The first attempts to do so by pointing out that one bacterial species has 33 proteins while another has 40, therefore the 33 version is an example of a transitional species. But then goes on to say. "So the notion of natural selection bodging together the tail using bits already present in bacteria is plausible. No need for a designer."

    Over and over again, darwinists use examples of "natural selection bodging together" bits of DNA as an example that mutations and natural selection can account for the addition of new, useful information that didn't previously exist. When you look at exactly what that means in the details, the assertion is preposterous.

  10. #200
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    My more complete answer to your question cannot be proven, so I don't want to give the impression that I think it can be.
    I just want the answer, forget the 'proof' for now.

    Do you, or do not accept this:

    "Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B." Just yes or no!

    You keep posting these flaws, or suspected flaws, over and over and over, and then you keep claiming you're not offering them as 'proof'. What are you offering them as? Why are you posting them?

    A few times you posted something along the lines of "x can't possibly exist without an intelligent designer - therefore the existence of x = god/intelligent designer exists". Is this your position or not? Again, that's a yes or no question.

    I inceasingly have no idea what you're actually trying to get across here.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO