The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Radrook]

I'll take "motivational calendar based distractions" for $300, Alex

Sold Bill!

 

[Radrook]

Trying to shoehorn "mathematical sequences" into reality is exactly the type of human-imagined-agency that I was mentioning in the other thread.

Denying that there are detectable mathematical sequences in nature is a self-inflicted delusion induced by the desperate need to avoid inference of mind.

 

[Speedwell]

Denying that there are detectable mathematical sequences in nature is a self-inflicted delusion induced by the desperate need to avoid inference of mind.

The alternative position being that mathematical sequences model orderly patterns in nature, rather than causing them--although what that has to do with "the desperate need to avoid inference of mind" is not evident.

 

[Radrook]

The alternative position being that mathematical sequences model orderly patterns in nature, rather than causing them--although what that has to do with "the desperate need to avoid inference of mind" is not evident.

Why would a theist be striving to prove that God isn't involved? Isn't that supposed to be the atheist agenda?

BTW
I see nor reason to claim that what I am referring to in plain English isn't evident.
I think that what you mean is that you disagree.

 

[Armoured]

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Yes. Creatonists included.

 

[Radrook]

Yes. Creatonists included.

I always thought that Catholics considered God creating heaven and Earth a given. Does the Catholic Church now allow for disbelief in that basic tenet as well?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would a theist be striving to prove that God isn't involved? Isn't that supposed to be the atheist agenda?

Typical. I don't agree in every particular with your theology, so I must be denying God.

I see nor reason to claim that what I am referring to in plain English isn't evident.
I think that what you mean is that you disagree.

Yes I do disagree; it's an issue in philosophy which has remained unresolved for millennia. I suppose you think it child's play on your part to resolve it--all you have to do is assert and then condemn those who disagree with you. But you are not being consistent. You are arguing for a Conceptualist view of the mind on the "Brain" thread, and here you are defending Platonism. What gives?

 

[Radrook]

Typical. I don't agree in every particular with your theology, so I must be denying God.


Yes I do disagree; it's an issue in philosophy which has remained unresolved for millennia. I suppose you think it child's play on your part to resolve it--all you have to do is assert and then condemn those who disagree with you. But you are not being consistent. You are arguing for a Conceptualist view of the mind on the "Brain" thread, and here you are defending Platonism. What gives?

Well, there are those who disagree with my views but whom I don't consider to be pro atheists as a consequence. It all depends exactly what it is they are taking umbrage with. If they take umbrage with my belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, then I am justified in concluding that they are atheists since what they imagine they are rejecting is God. Not that ID demands the proposition of a god, gods, God, or anything supernatural. It doesn't. Only that they seem to always assume that it does and so their rejection can be justifiably understood as being atheistic.

About your Platonism and Brain-thread comment-sorry but I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Strathos]

Well, there are those who disagree with my views but whom I don't consider to be pro atheists as a consequence. It all depends exactly what it is they are taking umbrage with. If they take umbrage with my belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, then I am justified in concluding that they are atheists since what they imagine they are rejecting is God. Not that ID demands the proposition of a god, gods, God, or anything supernatural. It doesn't. Only that they seem to always assume that it does and so their rejection can be justifiably understood as being atheistic.

About your Platonism and Brain-thread comment-sorry but I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

The issue I think is not whether there is a designer, but the specifics of what was designed via what methods.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, there are those who disagree with my views but whom I don't consider to be pro atheists as a consequence. It all depends exactly what it is they are taking umbrage with. If they take umbrage with my belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, then I am justified in concluding that they are atheists since what they imagine they are rejecting is God.

In other words, those who reject your theology are denying God. But maybe they are just rejecting what they see as bad theology; have you never thought of that?

Not that ID demands the proposition of a god, gods, God, or anything supernatural. It doesn't. Only that they seem to always assume that it does and so their rejection can be justifiably understood as being atheistic.

It's a reasonable assumption, given that ID is nothing but a cover for biblical creationism. And rejecting the god of biblical creationism is not necessarily a bad thing for a Christian.

About your Platonism and Brain-thread comment-sorry but I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

You are arguing for a Conceptualist view of "mind" on the Mysteries of the Brain thread. Conceptualism is opposed to Platonism. On this thread you are arguing in favor of Mathematical Realism, which is a form of Platonism.

 

[Radrook]

The issue I think is not whether there is a designer, but the specifics of what was designed via what methods.

The specifics aren't necessary in order to justifiably conclude that what one is observing is a sequence of events which indicate that it was established by a planning mind. Mindlessness just doesn't fit in with the final products of your chemical reactions. Neither does coded information fit in. The whole idea is ludicrous!

 

[Strathos]

The specifics aren't necessary in order to justifiably conclude that what one is observing is a sequence of events which indicate that it was established by a planning mind. Mindlessness just doesn't fit in with the final products of your chemical reactions. Neither does coded information fit in. The whole idea is ludicrous!

I think another analogy can help expand on this. Say you have a farmer, who owns a very large farm. He has to make sure all of the plants on the farm are properly watered. Some might argue that he individually waters each plant with a watering can, while others say that he built and installed an automatic sprinkler system, set to turn on at certain times every day, so the plants will be watered without the farmer's direct supervision, and without needing to micromanage everything. In both cases, the farmer is responsible for watering the plants, just using different methods.

 

[Speedwell]

I think another analogy can help expand on this. Say you have a farmer, who owns a very large farm. He has to make sure all of the plants on the farm are properly watered. Some might argue that he individually waters each plant with a watering can, while others say that he built and installed an automatic sprinkler system, set to turn on at certain times every day, so the plants will be watered without the farmer's direct supervision, and without needing to micromanage everything. In both cases, the farmer is responsible for watering the plants, just using different methods.

And then you have Intelligent Design theory, in which the farmer installs an automatic watering system but it doesn't work very well, and the farmer has to show up periodically with his watering can anyway when the system breaks down...

 

[Freodin]

I think another analogy can help expand on this. Say you have a farmer, who owns a very large farm. He has to make sure all of the plants on the farm are properly watered. Some might argue that he individually waters each plant with a watering can, while others say that he built and installed an automatic sprinkler system, set to turn on at certain times every day, so the plants will be watered without the farmer's direct supervision, and without needing to micromanage everything. In both cases, the farmer is responsible for watering the plants, just using different methods.

The problem with this - basically rather good - analogy: the "ID proponents" are those who - when shown a vast area of land that no farmer ever visited and that still sports lush plantlife, growing due to rain - insist that there still must be an "intelligent farmer" responsible for the plants.

 

[quatona]

Why would a theist be striving to prove that God isn't involved?

They might be striving to look at the validity of a particular argument. (As in: There´s a God - but this argument in support of the notion that there is a God is poor.)

Isn't that supposed to be the atheist agenda?

You seem to be assuming that everyone here is sacrificing their reasoning abilities to their agenda.
Projection, I guess.

 

[Speedwell]

They might be striving to look at the validity of a particular argument. (As in: There´s a God - but this argument in support of the notion that there is a God is poor.)

Radrook has made it abundantly clear that he will not accept that possibility under any circumstances.

 

[Radrook]

They might be striving to look at the validity of a particular argument. (As in: There´s a God - but this argument in support of the notion that there is a God is poor.)

You seem to be assuming that everyone here is sacrificing their reasoning abilities to their agenda.
Projection, I guess.

By agenda I simply meant their modus operandi.

BTW
Ít just seems weird to have a person identifying as a theist and doing everything possible to discredit the existence of an intelligent designer. It simply doesn't add up.

 

[Speedwell]

By agenda I simply meant their modus operandi.

BTW
Ít just seems weird to have a person identifying as a theist and doing everything possible to discredit the existence of an intelligent designer. It simply doesn't add up.

But the numbers add up, if that counts for anything. Most RCs, members of the Orthodox and Oriental churches, even many YECs have no use for ID. Then there are other theists as well; Jews, Hindus, etc.
I know you like to think that anyone who rejects your brilliant arguments for the existence of a "designer" could only be doing so out of atheistic motivation...
But maybe, just maybe, there is another reason.

 

[quatona]

By agenda I simply meant their modus operandi.

And I meant that - probably unfathomable to you - the epistemological modus operandi can be independent of one´s beliefs.

BTW
Ít just seems weird to have a person identifying as a theist and doing everything possible to discredit the existence of an intelligent designer. It simply doesn't add up.

I understand how it seems
- that that´s what he does and
- that that´s weird
to you, seeing how you approach these questions.

 

[Radrook]

The problem with this - basically rather good - analogy: the "ID proponents" are those who - when shown a vast area of land that no farmer ever visited and that still sports lush plantlife, growing due to rain - insist that there still must be an "intelligent farmer" responsible for the plants.

Place the scenario on a rainless, barren wasteland of an extrasolar planet where nothing ever grows except by the farmer's efforts and your counterargument crumbles.