If I have the Respect of every Creature, I have the respect of Evolution?

[Neogaia777]

Your stated view up to this point has been certainty of intelligence. Why are you now claiming only possibility of intelligence?

Your posts demonstrate a very imprecise, changeable and wishy-washy attitude towards evidence, arguments, opinions and beliefs. You appear not to understand the difference between a positive claim, a negative claim and a neutral claim. You appear not to understand the difference between certainty and possibility. You appear not to understand the difference between validity of an argument and strength of an argument. After this latest post you also appear not to know what your own opinion actually is!

Oh and "hurling insults" is usually the last resort of the desperate, etc...

And I don't want to play that game right now, K...

I do understand the terms, and was only trying to figure out where you are or were coming from and was trying to meet you halfway, K...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh and "hurling insults" is usually the last resort of the desperate, etc...

And I don't want to play that game right now, K...

I do understand the terms, and was only trying to figure out where you are or were coming from and was trying to meet you halfway, K...

God Bless!

What insult was hurled?

 

[Neogaia777]

What insult was hurled?

"You don't even seem to understand", etc, etc, etc, "the differences between such and such", etc, when I do, as I just now tried to explain or cause you to understand, etc...

Anyway, if you want to have an actual discussion on the possibility of intelligence, please let me know, K...?

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think it's almost 99.9% certain, but that is only my opinion... and I was talking about what you were claiming when talking about the "possibility", etc, and I was only trying to "meet you half-way", etc...



I believe my claim is neutral, and much more neutral or much more objective than yours is, etc...

And I do know the differences in those terms, and I said, was only trying to meet you half-way, etc...

But you seem to have no interest in that, so...?

But if you decide that you do...?

You said there was a "possibility of intelligence", etc, if so, what do you mean by that, or what do you base that one, etc...? Cause your now seeming to claim that there is "absolutely no possibility of intelligence", etc, so, I ask again, what do you mean, etc...?

I'm only trying to see and know where your coming from, etc, but your not making that "easy" by any means, etc...

You seem to be contradicting yourself a lot, etc...

If there is a possibility, how much of a possibility do you think, or don't you think...? And if there is "any possibility at all", what do you base that on, etc...?

Or if you think there is "no possibility at all" then please be clear about what you mean or are saying or else not saying please, OK...? (and try not be so "wishy-washy" about it, K)...?

Anyway, much thanks,

God Bless!

Unlike you, I have not changed my position and I have not contradicted myself in any way. I have consistently said there is no evidence of an intelligent agent, but that does not preclude such an agent being involved. You need to stop misrepresenting my views.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"You don't even seem to understand", etc, etc, etc, "the differences between such and such", etc, when I do, as I just now tried to explain or cause you to understand, etc...

Anyway, if you want to have an actual discussion on the possibility of intelligence, please let me know, K...?

God Bless!

That is not an insult, it is an observation based on your posts.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have consistently said there is no evidence of an intelligent agent, but that does not preclude such an (intelligent) agent being involved. (or such and intelligence being involved and/or existing, etc, or responsible for all of "this" or behind all of "this", etc).

Please explain to me how "this" is not a very clear contradiction, etc...?

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean or where you are coming from due to things and statements like "this", or "these", etc...?

Either there is or is not a possibility...? Please be clear on what you are meaning or are trying to say, K...?

Otherwise it kind of prevents us from getting anywhere in the way of a discussion, or from having any kind of discussion, etc...?

Much thanks,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

That is not an insult, it is an observation based on your posts.

OK...?

I'm not the one not being being very clear about their position, but OK...?

I said I "believe" it's almost certain, now what is your position on it...?

How likely or unlikely do you think it is, or is not, etc...?

And if you think it's likely at all, (which I'm still having trouble understanding with you about?), (anyway), if you think it's in any way likely at all, how likely...? Or unlikely, etc...? and what you base any kind of likeliness of such on at all, if you think it's in any way likely at all, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Unlike you, I have not changed my position and I have not contradicted myself in any way. I have consistently said there is no evidence of an intelligent agent, but that does not preclude such an agent being involved. You need to stop misrepresenting my views.

OK, I'm really trying to understand, maybe your saying that there is a possibility of such and intelligent agent, etc, but there is absolutely no evidence of or for such, etc, maybe, etc...?

Is that what you are trying to say...?

But if so, what do you base such a possibility of such a possible (intelligent) agent or being "on", if there is absolutely no possibility (or evidence) of such an (intelligent) agent, (or being), (anyway), "on", etc, if such evidence or possibility absolutely does not exist, etc...? or there is absolutely no possibility (or evidence) for such an (intelligent) agent or being, etc, even being possible, and/or existing, etc...?

Or, IOW's, (cause this is getting confusing, as so often happens with contradictory things or sayings or statements) (anyway), Or, IOW's, what do you base the possibility on, if you say there is no such possibility at all, etc...? Or if you say there is "no such possibility", (at all, etc) then what do you base "that" "on", and why do you then say there "is such a possibility" (of such), etc...?

Or if there is absolutely no evidence at all for such, why do you still say there is a possibility, etc...? Or what do you base the possibility on if there is absolutely no evidence at all for such a possibility, etc...?

Or, why do you say there is a possibility if you think there is absolutely no possibility, IOW's...?

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK, I'm really trying to understand, maybe your saying that there is a possibility of such and intelligent agent, etc, but there is absolutely no evidence of or for such, etc, maybe, etc...?

Is that what you are trying to say...?

But if so, what do you base such a possibility of such a possible (intelligent) agent or being "on", if there is absolutely no possibility (or evidence) of such an (intelligent) agent, (or being), (anyway), "on", etc, if such evidence or possibility absolutely does not exist, etc...? or there is absolutely no possibility (or evidence) for such an (intelligent) agent or being, etc, even being possible, and/or existing, etc...?

Or, IOW's, (cause this is getting confusing, as so often happens with contradictory things or sayings or statements) (anyway), Or, IOW's, what do you base the possibility on, if you say there is no such possibility at all, etc...? Or if you say there is "no such possibility", (at all, etc) then what do you base "that" "on", and why do you then say there "is such a possibility" (of such), etc...?

Or if there is absolutely no evidence at all for such, why do you still say there is a possibility, etc...? Or what do you base the possibility on if there is absolutely no evidence at all for such a possibility, etc...?

Or, why do you say there is a possibility if you think there is absolutely no possibility, IOW's...?

God Bless!

It's an incredibly simple concept, perhaps a different illustration would help: You might make a claim that there is a large teapot orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus. Is there any evidence of this teapot? No. Is it possible that there is a teapot there? Yes.

So my position would be that there is no evidence of a teapot, therefore I have no reason to accept your claim. However, I accept the possibility that there might be one, no matter how unlikely I consider it to be.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please explain to me how "this" is not a very clear contradiction, etc...?

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean or where you are coming from due to things and statements like "this", or "these", etc...?

Lol. The part you find unclear is your own words, not mine. You quoted part of your own post. Perhaps you should think about the implications of finding your own words confusing

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@All

First off, I did not say you guys were stupid, but only that the idea or working off the assumption that there is no God is foolish and stupid, like scripture says, (Psalms 14:1, Psalms 53:1)...

And that He (God) can be clearly seen in what is made, or things that were made and/or exist, etc, (Romans 1:20), and how much more so is that true "today", etc...

To work of the assumption that there is no mind or intelligence behind it all, is foolish, and, sorry to say, "stupid", etc...

When it is very clear to people like me that there "has to be", etc...

Like I said, it's not all "random chaos", etc... It has order and therefore design, etc, therefore an orderer or designer, etc...

Now I don't blame some of you for not believing in a God, or for not believing that there is or has to be a "God", or God-like being, because of some "other people", and the way that they have presented the idea of a "God" to you, etc, I don't blame you at all for that, etc, but, that makes your opinion and assumption that there is no God, "bias", does it not...? And you have let "them" make you think that, have you not...?

So don' have any bias(es) due to "them", and then tell me what you "truly think and see", etc... Do you see that there has to be intelligence, or an intelligence behind it, etc...? Or not, etc...?

In a science forum you're expected to be able to substantiate your claims; so how about answering the question - can you tell us precisely why you find the assumption that there is no mind or intelligence behind it all to be stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant?

Is it necessarily stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant to find 'what is very clear to people like you' to be unsubstantiated, untestable, lacking predictions, unfruitful, lacking explanatory power, un parsimonious, and lacking coherence or connection with our existing body of knowledge?

If so, by all means, explain how 'what is very clear to people like you' satisfies any of those criteria.

If you're unable or unwilling to do that, you could try explaining how order implies design.

Otherwise, Hitchen's Razor applies: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@All

And if you get to the point that you are completely unbiased and say that there has to some sort of "God" or intelligence behind it all, etc, then I can tell you more about Him or that One, and how that One differs from both God in the OT and Jesus Christ, and how God in the OT, was not the Highest Father God Jesus spoke of, but is the Holy Spirit, which gets into talking about the "true Trinity", etc... God in three different forms or "levels", etc...

And I can tell you what "hell" really truly is and is all about, etc... and that it is for people who stay here and never ever go beyond this ever, or were ever meant to go beyond this, etc, and that, that, is all of/or what hell truly is, etc, or is what being or staying "eternally tormented in hell" really is, etc...

And I can tell you how the creation account perfectly lines up with evolution, etc, and how one of the Highest Father God's "days" is meant to represent very, very long periods of time, etc, epochs or entire long ages, etc...

I can tell you all kinds of things, all kinds of truths that many people do not, and/or have not ever considered before, etc, that just makes everything "click", etc, and fall in line and into place, etc...

And none of it will contradict what you already know or know in your heart is true or is "the truth", etc...

And many of those "other people" I talked about will accuse me of "blasphemy" because of it, etc, but I swear to you it is the truth, etc...

Every sect has its own story, its own 'truths', and its own acolytes. Yours is no more interesting than any other.

 

[Neogaia777]

In a science forum you're expected to be able to substantiate your claims; so how about answering the question - can you tell us precisely why you find the assumption that there is no mind or intelligence behind it all to be stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant?

Is it necessarily stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant to find 'what is very clear to people like you' to be unsubstantiated, untestable, lacking predictions, unfruitful, lacking explanatory power, un parsimonious, and lacking coherence or connection with our existing body of knowledge?

If so, by all means, explain how 'what is very clear to people like you' satisfies any of those criteria.

If you're unable or unwilling to do that, you could try explaining how order implies design.

Otherwise, Hitchen's Razor applies: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

And @Bungle_Bear

I see evidence of intelligence, and I'm just wondering if you guys say there is the possibility of intelligence, what do you base that on, etc...?

Or is your saying there is absolutely no possibility at all of any kind of intelligence at all, again, what do you base that on...?

And if there is that possibility, then, again, why or what makes you think there is or could be that possibility, etc...?

And were only discussing possibilities here at this point and not absolutes or absolute positive proofs at this point, etc...

Much thanks,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Every sect has its own story, its own 'truths', and its own acolytes. Yours is no more interesting than any other.

I just wanted you guys to know that "mine" would all fall perfectly in line with what you already know, or at the very least have heard of, or what you would know in your hearts to be true, or the truth, etc, and it would not go against any of it, etc...

This "conflict" that many see between the sciences and religion, or at least, what I believe to be the "true Christian religion" anyway, etc, does not exist for me, etc, I see absolutely no conflict at all, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

In a science forum you're expected to be able to substantiate your claims; so how about answering the question - can you tell us precisely why you find the assumption that there is no mind or intelligence behind it all to be stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant?

Is it necessarily stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant to find 'what is very clear to people like you' to be unsubstantiated, untestable, lacking predictions, unfruitful, lacking explanatory power, un parsimonious, and lacking coherence or connection with our existing body of knowledge?

If so, by all means, explain how 'what is very clear to people like you' satisfies any of those criteria.

If you're unable or unwilling to do that, you could try explaining how order implies design.

Otherwise, Hitchen's Razor applies: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Just "look at the world around you", etc, and do so with no bias etc, and just tell me you don't "see it", etc...

Cause I submit the "evidence of an for intelligence" is "all and everything around you/me/us", etc...

I think you guys not being able to see it, or not wanting to see it, is due to some kind of personal bias of some kind, due to maybe some, possibly bad, personal experiences with maybe other so-called Christians maybe, or if not that, than "something else" or a lot of a lot of of other "something else's" maybe, etc...

Anyway, I do not think your opinions are by any means neutral or your looking at this totally neutrally by any means...

I think the "evidence" is all around us, that the "order of it all" indicates design, the fact that it can all be predicted and is all fully predictable and knowable by and through things like math and mathematics, etc, that the very reason we have the sciences in general, is due to order and design, and indicates an/the intelligence behind that order or design, etc, or that there is intelligent order behind that design, etc...

You guys don't think so, or you disagree...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

In a science forum you're expected to be able to substantiate your claims; so how about answering the question - can you tell us precisely why you find the assumption that there is no mind or intelligence behind it all to be stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant?

Is it necessarily stupid, ignorant, foolish, and arrogant to find 'what is very clear to people like you' to be unsubstantiated, untestable, lacking predictions, unfruitful, lacking explanatory power, un parsimonious, and lacking coherence or connection with our existing body of knowledge?

If so, by all means, explain how 'what is very clear to people like you' satisfies any of those criteria.

If you're unable or unwilling to do that, you could try explaining how order implies design.

Otherwise, Hitchen's Razor applies: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I do and did and do apologize for some or language I used, it came from a place of frustration, and I was not just talking about you guys, in fact much less about you guys than I was "some others", but anyway, I shouldn't have done it or said it and I am do apologize and I am sorry, K... Please forgive me, K...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Or is your saying there is absolutely no possibility at all of any kind of intelligence at all, again, what do you base that on...?

That's dishonest. I have said multiple times there is a possibility of intelligence, and explained why. It does not help discussion when you not only ignore what others say, but blatantly misrepresent what they say.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's dishonest. I have said multiple times there is a possibility of intelligence, and explained why. It does not help discussion when you not only ignore what others say, but blatantly misrepresent what they say.

(s)he is only here to preach.

 

[Neogaia777]

That's dishonest. I have said multiple times there is a possibility of intelligence, and explained why. It does not help discussion when you not only ignore what others say, but blatantly misrepresent what they say.

But you have also said that there is also no possibility of intelligence at all, or at least you have said that "in so many words", etc...

And I'm just trying to get you to just "say what you mean" is all...?

Is there, or is there not the possibility...?

And if there is, what do you base that on...?

And if there is not, also, what do you then base that on, etc...?

And just say what you mean, cause it cannot be "both", etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

(s)he is only here to preach.

I'm here to get down to "the truth"...

And it's "he" BTW...

God Bless!