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

[Bungle_Bear]

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...

Please link to where I have said that or apologize for the repeated dishonesty.

 

[Neogaia777]

and explained why.

Can you show, or point me to, or say again, when and where you did this or said this please maybe...?

When and where you explained why there is both the possibility of intelligence, but not the possibility of intelligence, etc...?

Much thanks,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Please link to where I have said that or apologize for the repeated dishonesty.

You've said that there is absolutely no evidence of such, but that there is the possibility of such, etc...

And I'm just trying to understand what you are "actually saying and/or mean", etc...?

Yet "you turn around and accuse me of dishonesty", etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can you show, or point me to, or say again, when and where you did this or said this please maybe...?

Post #69

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You've said that there is absolutely no evidence of such, but that there is the possibility of such, etc...

And I'm just trying to understand what you are "actually saying and/or mean", etc...?

Yet "you turn around and accuse me of dishonesty", etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

I accuse you of dishonesty because you make dishonest claims about what I have said. So please, either quote where I have said what you claim or apologise for making those dishonest claims.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

How does one come to the possible conclusion that there might be a teapot in the first place...?

Or how does one even entertain the idea that there might be a teapot there in the first place, etc...?

And you are now saying that you do not deny the possibility, but that you think it is very much, or very much highly unlikely, etc, right...?

Now if that is you conclusion, for sure now, why do you think it is so very highly unlikely, etc...? or what do you base that conclusion of it's highly unlikeliness or being very much highly unlikely, "on", etc...?

And, for that matter, what do you base the possibility of it might possibly maybe being maybe so, "on", as well, etc...? If that is even truly so even in the slightest, etc...? (that you think it could or might be possible, etc) (what do or would you base that possibility on, etc)...?

Thanks,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I accuse you of dishonesty because you make dishonest claims about what I have said. So please, either quote where I have said what you claim or apologise for making those dishonest claims.

Well, it very much sounded like that's what you were trying to say to me, that there is both not a possibility, but also a possibility, etc, now,i f i had you wrong, I will and do apologize, but, how can you even entertain the slightest possibility at all, unless you or one has even the slightest "something" to base that on, etc...?

I was not being "dishonest" but was only trying to get you to clarify, etc...?

You now say it's "possible", but that you also think it's "highly unlikely", or "very highly unlikely", etc, and I just want to know what you "base that on", etc...? And/or also, what you also base even slightest possibility on, if it is even in the smallest, or the slightest way, or in even the most remotely possible way "possible", etc, anyway, what do or would you base that "conclusion" or whatever on, or maybe not base that on also, etc...?

What makes you not just flat out deny it altogether IOW's...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@Bungle_Bear

I'm just saying to even entertain the possibility at all, means there has to be something "somewhat tangible" maybe, for you to base that on, and to not just flat out deny the possibility (of it) (all) all together, and I just want to know what those "are", or what those "is" maybe, etc...?

If you say "it's possible" but there is absolutely no evidence, etc, what makes you even entertain the idea of it's even possible at all all together...? Or why do you not just say it's impossible, or it's not even possible at all all together...?

Do you have anything even maybe even remotely tangible at all to base that possibility on or off of, etc...?

And if you don't, why do you not just say it's 100% not possible at all, etc...?

I mean, do you maybe have "something else", something not very tangible or logical at all, that makes you not just flat out deny the possibility, due to there being absolutely no evidence of such at all, or do you actually base that on something that could possibly be very tangible and/or logical, etc...?

Why do you not just flat out reject and/or deny even the slightest or even the remotest possibility all together IOW's...? Especially if there is absolutely in no way, manner, shape or form any kind of real tangible evidence (for such) at all, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

@Bungle_Bear

I'm just saying to even entertain the possibility at all, means there has to be something "somewhat tangible" maybe, for you to base that on, and to not just flat out deny the possibility (of it) (all) all together, and I just want to know what those "are", or what those "is" maybe, etc...?

If you say "it's possible" but there is absolutely no evidence, etc, what makes you even entertain the idea of it's even possible at all all together...? Or why do you not just say it's impossible, or it's not even possible at all all together...?

Do you have anything even maybe even remotely tangible at all to base that possibility on or off of, etc...?

And if you don't, why do you not just say it's 100% not possible at all, etc...?

God Bless!

If something is impossible (2+2=5, for instance) I will say so. That is based on axioms and evidence. Claiming absolute certainty of a negative (there is no intelligent agent involved) requires similar evidence, i.e. I must have evidence that there is no way an intelligent agent could be involved. For the topic we are discussing I don't have that evidence, so I am honest enough to say "I cannot support that absolute claim", therefore I don't make that claim. It doesn't matter how unlikely I consider the possibility, I cannot categorically rule out an intelligent agent.

Is there a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus? You tell me.

Why do you struggle with that concept?

 

[Neogaia777]

If something is impossible (2+2=5, for instance) I will say so. That is based on axioms and evidence. Claiming absolute certainty of a negative (there is no intelligent agent involved) requires similar evidence, i.e. I must have evidence that there is no way an intelligent agent could be involved. For the topic we are discussing I don't have that evidence, so I am honest enough to say "I cannot support that absolute claim", therefore I don't make that claim. It doesn't matter how unlikely I consider the possibility, I cannot categorically rule out an intelligent agent.

Is there a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus? You tell me.

Why do you struggle with that concept?

So, the only difference between you and me is how likely or unlikely we think the possibility to be, correct...?

Why do you think it's so highly unlikely, and I think it's so highly likely...?

I see it in everything, (evidence of intelligence, etc), and from my post #75...

"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 even have the sciences at all in general, is due to it being and having 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...?

Is there such a big difference between us...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If something is impossible (2+2=5, for instance) I will say so. That is based on axioms and evidence. Claiming absolute certainty of a negative (there is no intelligent agent involved) requires similar evidence, i.e. I must have evidence that there is no way an intelligent agent could be involved. For the topic we are discussing I don't have that evidence, so I am honest enough to say "I cannot support that absolute claim", therefore I don't make that claim. It doesn't matter how unlikely I consider the possibility, I cannot categorically rule out an intelligent agent.

Is there a teapot orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus? You tell me.

Why do you struggle with that concept?

Also again, if you think there is "absolutely no evidence at all for such", what do you base even the slightest possibility of such on, no matter how remote you think it is, etc...? If you absolutely 100% believe there is absolutely no evidence at all for such at all, etc...?

Or do you think, or do you do maybe, base it on some kind of what might be able to be called or termed "evidence" at all, etc...? and/or cause if you don't at all, why not just rule out the possibility all together...?

I want to know what you base the possibility on, if there is absolutely no thing, or no thing tangible at all, to base that opinion or possibility on, basically, etc...?

The "teapot example" does not do justice to discussing the possibility of intelligence or and intelligent agent being and/or existing, etc, or being responsible for and/or behind all of "this" in my book if you ask me, etc...

Most people know how highly unlikely it is or would be for some random teapot to just be orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus, etc, but as far as some kind of intelligence being involved in or with all of "this", etc, I think that is much more highly debatable, etc... And is far more likely I would think...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So, the only difference between you and me is how likely or unlikely we think the possibility to be, correct...?

Why do you think it's so highly unlikely, and I think it's so highly likely...?

I see it in everything, (evidence of intelligence, etc), and from my post #75...

"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 even have the sciences at all in general, is due to it being and having 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...?

Is there such a big difference between us...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

You highlight the major difference in our methodology in this post. While you claim to be objective, you have an extremely strong bias. You "see" evidence because you want it to be evidence. You cannot point to specific indicators of design, but you want them to be there to support your a priori conclusion. I don't impose the same bias, so I don't force assumed and unsupported requirements onto the evidence. Was everything designed? There is no evidence of such, but I cannot rule it out. You, on the other hand, rule it in due to personal necessity and therefore require that the evidence is there without being able to say what that evidence actually is.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Also again, if you think there is "absolutely no evidence at all for such", what do you base even the slightest possibility of such on, no matter how remote you think it is, etc...? If you absolutely 100% believe there is absolutely no evidence at all for such at all, etc...?

Or do you think, or do you do maybe, base it on some kind of what might be able to be called or termed "evidence" at all, etc...? and/or cause if you don't at all, why not just rule out the possibility all together...?

I want to know what you base the possibility on, if there is absolutely no thing, or no thing tangible at all, to base that opinion or possibility on, basically, etc...?

The "teapot example" does not do justice to discussing the possibility of intelligence or and intelligent agent being and/or existing, etc, or being responsible for and/or behind all of "this" in my book if you ask me, etc...

Most people know how highly unlikely it is or would be for some random teapot to just be orbiting the Sun between Mercury and Venus, etc, but as far as some kind of intelligence being involved in or with all of "this", etc, I think that is much more highly debatable, etc... And is far more likely I would think...

God Bless!

Answer my question about the teapot (is there one in orbit around the sun?), and if you still cannot comprehend then I suspect there is no way you'll ever understand.

 

[Neogaia777]

Answer my question about the teapot (is there one in orbit around the sun?), and if you still cannot comprehend then there is no way you'll ever understand.

The teapot discussion is not even close to being being compared with the discussion of their being intelligence behind or involved in or with all of "this", etc...

It's a very, very, very poor comparison, etc... Much more "evidence" in and for intelligence than there being some random teapot orbiting some random wherever, or whatever, etc...

Maybe you can explain to me why you believe in the possibility of a thing for which you say there is absolutely 100% no evidence whatsoever of, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You highlight the major difference in our methodology in this post. While you claim to be objective, you have an extremely strong bias. You "see" evidence because you want it to be evidence. You cannot point to specific indicators of design, but you want them to be there to support your a priori conclusion. I don't impose the same bias, so I don't force assumed and unsupported requirements onto the evidence. Was everything designed? There is no evidence of such, but I cannot rule it out. You, on the other hand, rule it in due to personal necessity and therefore require that the evidence is there without being able to say what that evidence actually is.

I have tried to say, and I know I am lacking in specifics right now, but I was hoping some would get the "general idea", etc...

And you "see no evidence because you want there to be no evidence", and that is not the reason that that I think I see evidence, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The teapot discussion is not even close to being being compared with the discussion of their being intelligence behind or involved in or with all of "this", etc...

It's a very, very, very poor comparison, etc... Much more "evidence" in and for intelligence than there being some random teapot orbiting some random wherever, or whatever, etc...

Maybe you can explain to me why you believe in the possibility of a thing for which you say there is absolutely 100% no evidence whatsoever of, etc...?

God Bless!

If you refuse to engage, then I cannot help.

One last try - is there a teapot in orbit around the sun between Mercury and Venus?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And you "see no evidence because you want there to be no evidence", and that is not the reason that that I think I see evidence, etc...

Do not put words in my mouth, that's yet more dishonesty from you.

I do not see evidence because there is no evidence. Until such time as you can say "this is specifically evidence of intelligence" you have nothing.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you refuse to engage, then I cannot help.

One last try - is there a teapot in orbit around the sun between Mercury and Venus?

Based on the evidence presented to me thus far, I would think not, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Based on the evidence presented to me thus far, I would think not, etc...

God Bless!

So you cannot say with absolute certainty? Why not?

 

[Neogaia777]

Do not put words in my mouth, that's yet more dishonesty from you.

I do not see evidence because there is no evidence. Until such time as you can say "this is specifically evidence of intelligence" you have nothing.

Why do you think there is a possibility then...?

Cause I think that is exactly why you don't see any evidence, etc...?

Anyway,

I'm in the middle of cooking dinner now, I'll be back in a bit, bye for now...

God Bless!