Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Radrook]

What evidence supports the inference?

Why not simply cut and paste "Ï can't see!" and save yourself the trouble of typing?

 

[Radrook]

And yet you claim that atheists refuse to accept ID because it would require a belief in supernatural.

That comment must have been induced by your constantly introducing the supernatural into the discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please look up the definition of theistic evolution.

I have. Do you think that God has to intervene in nature to do what natural processes can't do by themselves?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not simply cut and paste "Ï can't see!" and save yourself the trouble of typing?

Yet another post without any evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That comment must have been induced by your constantly introducing the supernatural into the discussion.

You introduced the supernatural when you said that atheists refuse to accept ID because it would require a belief in the supernatural.

 

[Radrook]

I'm not asking about ID in the abstract, what I'm asking is that in your personal worldview, where it is apparently possible for the world we see to be a product of a non-supernatural designer, what role do you believe God would play if that was the case ?

If you don't want to say what role god would play if the ID wasn't supernatural, just say so; it's a personal question, we're not entitled to an answer. Alternatively, if you know anyone who is a theist and believes in a non-supernatural ID, what role does God play in their belief system.

I'm curious to know how a non-supernatural ID fits into a theist worldview.

I'm surprised that such a scenario causes perplexity since it is a common fixture in human history. After all, there have been humans who have been worshipped as gods. So example's of the role that such non-supernatural gods played in the lives of their worshipers abound.

If indeed mankind would suddenly encounter the undisputable intelligent designer who turns out to be non-supernatural, the reactions would vary in accordance with the influences of their culture. The ones convinced would need to shed their former religious beliefs. Those not convinced would probably say it is the devil or a demon. Others would simply say that it is an extraterrestrial or extra dimensional being who is simultaneously the intelligent designer. Human behavior is very complex and varied.

 

[bhsmte]

Why not simply cut and paste "Ï can't see!" and save yourself the trouble of typing?

He can't see what? Point it out. It appears, you can't demonstrate.

 

[Radrook]

He can't see what? Point it out. It appears, you can't demonstrate.

Demonstrate? DEMONSTRATE? For what? So you can then proceed monotonously to negate, reiterate and obfuscate? Nahhhhh! That time is more productively employed in my spit-polishing my pate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please look up the definition of theistic evolution.

Perhaps you should state the definition of theistic evolution that you believe in, instead of asking us to do it for you.

Last time we did that with the ID thingy, and ended up with the discovery institute's definition (who invented the model), you started complaining that that wasn't the "correct version of ID". While being mysteriously unwilling to explain how your version is apparantly different. And, curiously, making all the same arguments anyway.

Anyhow... let's not play that game again. Let's not try and guess what your beliefs are.

Try simply telling us, this time.

 

[Radrook]

Perhaps you should state the definition of theistic evolution that you believe in, instead of asking us to do it for you.

Last time we did that with the ID thingy, and ended up with the discovery institute's definition (who invented the model), you started complaining that that wasn't the "correct version of ID". While being mysteriously unwilling to explain how your version is apparantly different. And, curiously, making all the same arguments anyway.

Anyhow... let's not play that game again. Let's not try and guess what your beliefs are.

Try simply telling us, this time.

Weird! You seem to be under the misguided impression that I am under some type of inquisition trial. Inquisition victims were victims because they were forced to both listen and respond. I in contrast have certain options.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I already posted a link to the definition

Where? Must have missed it.


ps: every article I pull up about "theistic evolution" says basically the same thing... being that it has no problems with the modern scientific theory of evolution. Francis Collins, for example, expresses it as "evolution is real and it was set in motion by god".

Consider the first part of that sentence. "evolution is real". Evolution as in, the modern scientific theory where natural processes brings about the diversity of living things from a universal common ancestor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Weird! You seem to be under the misguided impression that I am under some type of inquisition trial. Inquisition victims were victims because they were forced to both listen and respond. I in contrast have certain options.

You went a head and edited your post completely after I already responded to it, apparantly.

Anyhow.... I have no clue what you are talking about.
Like always, I'm just asking you questions so that you can clarify your position. Because you speak about "theistic evolution" and it seems as if you aren't meaning what everybody else seems to understand by those terms.

That's what I do when something isn't clear to me: I ask questions. Instead of merely assuming what is meant.

So when I don't ask questions and assume you mean by the terms what everybody else usually means by it, then I get accused of strawmanning you.

And when I ask questions to avoid misrepresenting you, I get accused of subjecting you to inquisition-type trials.

Apparantly, the only acceptable response to your posts is to simply agree with whatever you are saying then, I guess.

Great.

 

[Jimmy D]

Weird! You seem to be under the misguided impression that I am under some type of inquisition trial. Inquisition victims were victims because they were forced to both listen and respond. I in contrast have certain options.

So why are you making these threads? How can you hope to further the case for ID or theistic evolution if you won't even set out your own thoughts on the matter?

I admire that you are sticking with it in the face of such oppostion but at some point, if any progress is to be made, you're going to have to post something more specific.

 

[KCfromNC]

Demonstrate? DEMONSTRATE? For what? So you can then proceed monotonously to negate, reiterate and obfuscate? Nahhhhh! That time is more productively employed in my spit-polishing my pate.

And yet you're still here refusing to answer simple questions.

 

[bhsmte]

Demonstrate? DEMONSTRATE? For what? So you can then proceed monotonously to negate, reiterate and obfuscate? Nahhhhh! That time is more productively employed in my spit-polishing my pate.

The fact you are so fearful of having any evidence challenged, is telling. The fact is, you have no evidence and you have clearly demonstrated this to be the case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm surprised that such a scenario causes perplexity since it is a common fixture in human history. After all, there have been humans who have been worshipped as gods. So example's of the role that such non-supernatural gods played in the lives of their worshipers abound.

If indeed mankind would suddenly encounter the undisputable intelligent designer who turns out to be non-supernatural, the reactions would vary in accordance with the influences of their culture. The ones convinced would need to shed their former religious beliefs. Those not convinced would probably say it is the devil or a demon. Others would simply say that it is an extraterrestrial or extra dimensional being who is simultaneously the intelligent designer. Human behavior is very complex and varied.

You seem to have answered a different question to the one I asked.

Let's try again: what role would God play in your worldview if the intelligent designer was not supernatural?

 

[Radrook]

You seem to have answered a different question to the one I asked.

Let's try again: what role would God play in your worldview if the intelligent designer was not supernatural?

Mas claro no canta un gallo!

Gallo - Spanish to English Translation | Spanish Central

 

[Loudmouth]

Demonstrate? DEMONSTRATE? For what? So you can then proceed monotonously to negate, reiterate and obfuscate? Nahhhhh! That time is more productively employed in my spit-polishing my pate.

Yet another post without evidence.

 

[Radrook]

So why are you making these threads? How can you hope to further the case for ID or theistic evolution if you won't even set out your own thoughts on the matter?

I admire that you are sticking with it in the face of such oppostion but at some point, if any progress is to be made, you're going to have to post something more specific.

Please note that I have repeatedly clarified what I mean but to no avail. So I really see no reason why I must repeatedly clarify what I clarified especially when I am not speaking Urdu. I am speaking plain English.

I did explain and even offered links where my particular theistic view is described as acceptable within the theistic evolution parameters and it was ignored. I also clearly explained that I am not espousing theistic evolution but merely saying that it does not prevent the conclusion of intelligent design. What am I supposed to do, repost it for the dozens of atheists who demand that I clarify such a simple thing? Isn't that a bit unrealistic.

To me it seems that the standard atheist response to anything that a theist proposes is to demand an explanation and when an explanation is provided then to demand elaboration. Then when an elaboration is provided to claim that they don't have the faintest idea what is being explained. Do you feel that encourages discussion? Absolutely not. That only leads to a breakdown of communication, and the conclusion that any further attempt at explanations is time-wastingly useless. When the insistence continues, then it becomes similar to an inquisition because the inquisitors were similarly not open to any agreement or to any logical persuasion but who kept insisting on an explanation. So I have concluded that it is simply just best to agree to disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

Please note that I have repeatedly clarified what I mean but to no avail. So I really see no reason why I must repeatedly clarify what I clarified especially when I am not speaking Urdu. I am speaking plain English.

I did explain and even offered links where my particular theistic view is described as acceptable within the theistic evolution parameters and it was ignored. I also clearly explained that I am not espousing theistic evolution but merely saying that it does not prevent the conclusion of intelligent design. What am I supposed to do, repost it for the dozens of atheists who demand that I clarify such a simple thing? Isn't that a bit unrealistic.

To me it seems that the standard atheist response to anything that a theist proposes is to demand an explanation and when an explanation is provided then to demand elaboration. Then when an elaboration is provided to claim that they don't have the faintest idea what is being explained. Do you feel that encourages discussion? Absolutely not. That only leads to a breakdown of communication, and the conclusion that any further attempt at explanations is time-wastingly useless. When the insistence continues, then it becomes similar to an inquisition because the inquisitors were similarly not open to any agreement or to any logical persuasion but who kept insisting on an explanation. So I have concluded that it is simply just best to agree to disagree.

Explain the links you have posted.