Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="David Gould" data-source="post: 1088582" data-attributes="member: 2866"><p>Actually, I typed them in but I only assigned meaning to one of them.</p><p> </p><p>'to shoot' was derived by simply flicking a dictionary open at random and jamming my finger down on the page. I decided that it had no meaning (similar to the way a parrot might select a word at random and say it).</p><p> </p><p>The other series of symbols were developed by me running my fingers over the keyboard. I then assigned meaning to the string of symbols. That meaning was, 'I thought not.'</p><p> </p><p>You see, I think it is possible for non-directed processes to produce any particular information string. Meaning, however, is something that is assigned by intelligence.</p><p> </p><p>I do not think it is possible to prove that meaning has been assigned by intelligence to any particular information string at the point of production/transmission.</p><p> </p><p>You may be able to find evidence for or against such intelligence - for example, the famous pulsar discovery, where initially it was thought that it could be aliens until they checked into it a little further - but you can never prove it. Unless, of course, that you can meet the little green me - or the big guy in the sky - and ask them directly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="David Gould, post: 1088582, member: 2866"] Actually, I typed them in but I only assigned meaning to one of them. 'to shoot' was derived by simply flicking a dictionary open at random and jamming my finger down on the page. I decided that it had no meaning (similar to the way a parrot might select a word at random and say it). The other series of symbols were developed by me running my fingers over the keyboard. I then assigned meaning to the string of symbols. That meaning was, 'I thought not.' You see, I think it is possible for non-directed processes to produce any particular information string. Meaning, however, is something that is assigned by intelligence. I do not think it is possible to prove that meaning has been assigned by intelligence to any particular information string at the point of production/transmission. You may be able to find evidence for or against such intelligence - for example, the famous pulsar discovery, where initially it was thought that it could be aliens until they checked into it a little further - but you can never prove it. Unless, of course, that you can meet the little green me - or the big guy in the sky - and ask them directly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
Top
Bottom