Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Radrook]

That's a dead give-away fact about ID not being a scientific model.
In science, proposed models are never seen as certain. Not even if the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that denying it would be nothing short of pervers.

Even then absolute certainty is never expressed.



From a purely objective viewpoint, there is exactly zero evidence of such designers.



Well, at least you realise the emotional implications of your position. I guess that's something.




ID itself seems pretty irrelevant.

Anything and EVERYTHING is mindlessly tagged as a dead giveaway by the irrational atheist mentality. That's why real dialogue is an impossibility.

BTW
I never claimed certainty in my response. So you either didn't read it-didn't understand it when you did, or are purposefully misrepresenting it. Which one is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything and EVERYTHING is mindlessly tagged as a dead giveaway by the irrational atheist mentality.

This has nothing to do with "anything" or "everything" or "atheism".
And everything with the fact that scientific models are never presented as or considered "absolutely certain". Not even simply "certain".

Whenever a model IS presented as such, you are leaving the realm of scientific discourse.

That's simply the way it is. You were not aware of that?

I never claimed certainty in my response.

You might want to stockpile on Flamazine for those burn wounds, with your pants on fire like that...

I don't really have a world of 100% certainty except for the 100% certainty of intelligent design and an intelligent designer who is exceedingly intelligent and powerful

So you either didn't read it-didn't understand it when you did, or are purposefully misrepresenting it. Which one is it?

I'll go for secret option number 4, where you are again either not aware of what you posted in this thread just 2 posts ago or are just lying about it.


Thanks for playing. You need more training though.

 

[Radrook]

This has nothing to do with "anything" or "everything" or "atheism".
And everything with the fact that scientific models are never presented as or considered "absolutely certain". Not even simply "certain".

Whenever a model IS presented as such, you are leaving the realm of scientific discourse.

That's simply the way it is. You were not aware of that?



You might want to stockpile on Flamazine for those burn wounds, with your pants on fire like that...






I'll go for secret option number 4, where you are again either not aware of what you posted in this thread just 2 posts ago or are just lying about it.

[/QUOTE]

Certainty within the parameters of logic is claimed every single day of your life. Otherwise you would be paralyzed and unable to move due to uncertainty. Our space programs are based on certainties. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to plan space missions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Certainty within the parameters of logic is claimed every single day of your life. Otherwise you would be paralyzed and unable to move due to uncertainty.

Expressing "100% certainty" is what it is. It doesn't get any more "certain" then that. It leaves exactly 0% chance of being mistaken.

It's fine if you wish to retract it off course.
But please, don't pretend as if you didn't express absolute certainty. 100% really isn't up for debate or interpretation...

 

[Radrook]

This has nothing to do with "anything" or "everything" or "atheism".
And everything with the fact that scientific models are never presented as or considered "absolutely certain". Not even simply "certain".

Whenever a model IS presented as such, you are leaving the realm of scientific discourse.

That's simply the way it is. You were not aware of that?



You might want to stockpile on Flamazine for those burn wounds, with your pants on fire like that...






I'll go for secret option number 4, where you are again either not aware of what you posted in this thread just 2 posts ago or are just lying about it.


Thanks for playing. You need more training though.

I never claimed certainty in reference to the personality of the intelligent designer. That was the question you asked and to which I responded by saying that I am not certain. I did briefly mention being certain about an intelligent designer just as you are certain of the existence of gravity. I assumed you would readily see what I meant instead of immediately going off on some wild tangent with accusations.

 

[Radrook]

Expressing "100% certainty" is what it is. It doesn't get any more "certain" then that. It leaves exactly 0% chance of being mistaken.

It's fine if you wish to retract it off course.
But please, don't pretend as if you didn't express absolute certainty. 100% really isn't up for debate or interpretation...

Retract my response to your question about the identity of the intelligent designer to which I said I am uncertain?
Of course not.
Retract my belief that an intelligent designer is the most logical explanation for the universe?
Would you retract your belief in gravity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never claimed certainty in reference to the personality of the intelligent designer.

I didn't say you did.

That was the question you asked and to which I responded by saying that I am not certain.

I didn't ask you that question. @bhsmte did.
And I'm, obviously, talking about what you did claim to be certain about.

I did briefly mention being certain about an intelligent designer just as you are certain of the existence of gravity.

I definatly do not claim "100% certainty" about gravitation theory.

I assumed you would readily see what I meant instead of immediately going off on some wild tangent with accusations.

In other circumstances, I might. Eventhough under any circumstance, all kind of alarm bells are going off whenever "100% certainty" is claimed, especially concerning things that are presented as scientific models of explanation and even more so, when those models are actually rejected by scientific consensus.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Retract my response to your question about the identity of the intelligent designer to which I said I am uncertain?

1. i didn't ask the question
2. "except for the 100% certainty of intelligent design and an intelligent designer who is exceedingly intelligent and powerful" ~Radrook, post #138

Retract my belief that an intelligent designer is the most logical explanation for the universe?
Would you retract your belief in gravity?

I don't have a "belief" in gravitation theory - or any other scientific model of reality.

I have a provisional acceptance of gravitation theory as being demonstrably the best working model of gravity currently available.

If demonstrated that it does not work, I would change my stance accordingly.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't really have a world of 100% certainty except for the 100% certainty of intelligent design and an intelligent designer who is exceedingly intelligent and powerful. What the intelligent designer's personality is from a purely objective viewpoint is debatable. Most of us prefer to attribute a benevolent personality because it is comforting. Which of course requires that an explanation of the presence of evil, sickness, death, etcetera within that assumption's parameters be provided. But that is totally irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design.

I didnt aske about personality of the intelligent designer in your world, i asked who you claim the intelligent designer is?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't consider any legitimate scientific question silly. What I consider silly is the unscientific mindset of avoiding to obvious cuz you don't like what it indicates.

An unscientific mindset is one where someone thinks "it's obvious" is a valid argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you insist that it's religious why should I insist on keeping it non-religious?

Why do you state that atheists refuse to accept intelligent design?

 

[bhsmte]

Why do you state that atheists refuse to accept intelligent design?

I get a kick out of this. The reality is, many more theists by number, disagree with ID compared to atheists.

 

[Radrook]

I get a kick out of this. The reality is, many more theists by number, disagree with ID compared to atheists.

The more the merrier.

 

[Radrook]

Why do you state that atheists refuse to accept intelligent design?

Because atheists refuse to accept intelligent design?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because atheists refuse to accept intelligent design?

Why do you think that is?

 

[Radrook]

I didnt aske about personality of the intelligent designer in your world, i asked who you claim the intelligent designer is?

Under the ID argument and on this science forum, I am not making any specific claim at all,

BTW
You want to know what the possibilities might be under the ID scheme? Well, how about one of your hypothetical extra dimensional beings? Or a being from one of your hypothetical infinite number of multi-universes?

 

[Radrook]

Why do you think that is?

Because that's what they usually do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Under the ID argument and on this science forum, I am not making any specific claim at all,

Then why do you say atheists refuse to accept ID because it would mean that there is a creator deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because that's what they usually do.

Why do you think they do that?

 

[Radrook]

Why do you think they do that?

Main reasons I have encountered:

1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.
2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.