The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Apologies accepted.

So, can you explain how, in your view, a "natural" and "non theistic" mind works?

Since I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source I cannot very well explain such a hypothetical phenomenon. In short, to explain it I would need to consider it possible but I don't.

 

[Freodin]

I assumed that he wasn't postulating such an idea as either a possibility or a certainty. If indeed I am mistaken then my apologies. Since I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source I cannot very well explain such a hypothetical phenomenon. In short, to explain it I would need to consider it possible but I don't.

Was to quick with responding, sorry.

So, everytime you stated that you support a "natural", "scientific" and "non theistic" idea of "Intelligent Design", and accused atheists of being the ones who introduce "God" into this discussion... you were, what, a little disingenuous?

 

[Radrook]

Was to quick with responding, sorry.

So, everytime you stated that you support a "natural", "scientific" and "non theistic" idea of "Intelligent Design", and accused atheists of being the ones who introduce "God" into this discussion... you were, what, a little disingenuous?

No, it is my fault since I post and then add afterthoughts. Need to correct that habit.

It depends on the thread's intention and the thread starter's modus operandi. If the thread starter introduces God then I see no reason why I should not go along. However, when I post a thread which is specifically dealing with ID, then I strive to remain within those ID parameters.

 

[Freodin]

No, it is my fault since I post and then add afterthoughts. Need to correct that habit.

It depends on the thread's intention and the thread starter's modus operandi. If the thread starter introduces God then I see no reason why I should not go along. However, when I post a thread which is specifically dealing with ID, then I strive to remain within those ID parameters.

How can you even try to "remain within those ID parameters"... when you do not know what these parameters are, and would not accept them if you knew?

See, that is the reason why the ID people - and that includes you here - are seen to be dishonest. You claim to do "science"... but the slightest scratch on the surface of seriousity brings the real core to the light: "Magic Man Done It".

 

[Radrook]

How can you even try to "remain within those ID parameters"... when you do not know what these parameters are, and would not accept them if you knew?

See, that is the reason why the ID people - and that includes you here - are seen to be dishonest. You claim to do "science"... but the slightest scratch on the surface of seriousity brings the real core to the light: "Magic Man Done It".

That's beceuse you are striving to set what those parameters are for me. The one who determines what those parameters are is me-not you, not Behe, and not even God. ME!
Now you can say that you can't see what I mean by that as usual or take issue with the links in my signature after having requested I provide links in my signature.

BTW
The only one claiming magic via your godess AbioJenniffer is you.

 

[Freodin]

That's beceuse you are striving to set what those parameters are for me. The one who determines what those parameters are is me-not you, not Behe, and not even God. ME!

Yes, you are setting these parameters. And they are inconsistent. That's the problem.

You cannot have it both: a "natural, scientific and non theistic Intelligent Creator" when you want to argue against evolution or abiogenesis, and a "unknown, unknowable, but totally not based on natural materialistic methods Intelligent Creator" as soon as someone asks you how such a "natural" creator would work.

Disingenuous.

Now you can say that you can't see what I mean by that as usual or take issue with the links in my signature after having requested I provide links in my signature.

I admit that I didn't read the links you put there. So what: I wasn't the one who asked for them.

And here, I don't need to. If you had a scientific basis for your claims, you would stick with it. But whatever the "scientific" basis of ID may be... your constant falling back to something supernatural shows what is under the skin.

BTW
The only one claiming magic via your godess AbioJenniffer is you.

So now natural processes are "magic", as soon as you don't agree with the idea.

So much for a "natural", "scientific" and "non theistic" approach.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, you are setting these parameters. And they are inconsistent. That's the problem.

You cannot have it both: a "natural, scientific and non theistic Intelligent Creator" when you want to argue against evolution or abiogenesis, and a "unknown, unknowable, but totally not based on natural materialistic methods Intelligent Creator" as soon as someone asks you how such a "natural" creator would work.

Disingenuous.


I admit that I didn't read the links you put there. So what: I wasn't the one who asked for them.

And here, I don't need to. If you had a scientific basis for your claims, you would stick with it. But whatever the "scientific" basis of ID may be... your constant falling back to something supernatural shows what is under the skin.


So now natural processes are "magic", as soon as you don't agree with the idea.

So much for a "natural", "scientific" and "non theistic" approach.

I never claimed that the intelligent designer needs to be supernatural. The ones making that demand are you folks not me. I repeatedly tell you folks this and you respond by saying that you can't see. If indeed you can't understand such a simple statement then there is really no common ground for any productive discussion. It would be far more logical and more satisfying for you to simply make a straw man and argue against yourselves. At least then you would not need to be constantly claiming not to see whenever a clarification is offered.

 

[Freodin]

I never claimed that the intelligent designer needs to be supernatural. The ones making that demand are you folks not me.

Let's see:
"...I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source."
So, an "intelligent designer" needs to be a "mind". But a "mind" cannot arise naturally without another "mind" as a source. And that "mind" cannot arise naturally...

So, you do claim that the "intelligent designer" cannot arise naturally.

If it cannot arise naturally... what is it?

I repeatedly tell you folks this and you respond by saying that you can't see. If indeed you can't understand such a simple statement then there is really no common ground for any productive discussion. It would be far more logical and more satisfying for you to simply make a straw man and argue against yourselves. At least then you would not need to be constantly claiming not to see whenever a clarification is offered.

Then again, I ask you to explain yourself: how does a "natural intelligent designer" work?

 

[Radrook]

Let's see:
"...I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source."
So, an "intelligent designer" needs to be a "mind". But a "mind" cannot arise naturally without another "mind" as a source. And that "mind" cannot arise naturally...

So, you do claim that the "intelligent designer" cannot arise naturally.

If it cannot arise naturally... what is it?


Then again, I ask you to explain yourself: how does a "natural intelligent designer" work?

.

It cannot arise within nature as we know it without being itself designed. That doesn't mean that the mind that has arisen is supernatural itself-does it? Were the minds of the builders of the Obelisk in film 2001 A Space Odyssey, which dealt with the creation of mankind and possibly with the design of our universe supernatural? Did you find it unacceptable that they were not depicted as such? No, the audiences simply suspended disbelief and rationalized it a perfectly plausible. Had it been suggested that it had been God, then some of the atheist audience would have gone berserk.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's see:
"...I personally do not believe that mind arises naturally without an intelligent designer as a source."
So, an "intelligent designer" needs to be a "mind". But a "mind" cannot arise naturally without another "mind" as a source. And that "mind" cannot arise naturally...

So, you do claim that the "intelligent designer" cannot arise naturally.

If it cannot arise naturally... what is it?


Then again, I ask you to explain yourself: how does a "natural intelligent designer" work?

I can't keep up with all the contradictions in this thread. This happens when a personal belief is being threatened, by well evidenced reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

.

It cannot arise within nature as we know it without being itself designed. That doesn't mean that the mind that has arisen is supernatural itself-does it? Were the minds of the builders of the Obelisk in film 2001 A Space Odyssey, which dealt with the creation of mankind and possibly with the design of our universe supernatural? Did you find it unacceptable that they were not depicted as such?

You do realize that movie was a work of fiction?

 

[Freodin]

.

It cannot arise within nature as we know it without being itself designed. That doesn't mean that the mind that has arisen is supernatural itself-does it? Were the minds of the builders of the Obelisk in film 2001 A Space Odyssey, which dealt with the creation of mankind and possibly with the design of our universe supernatural? Did you find it unacceptable that they were not depicted as such? No, the audiences simply suspended disbelief and rationalized it a perfectly plausible.

Let's ignore for a second that 2001 is a work of fiction, and that the builders of the Obelisk in reality were very natural intelligent creators... human prop builders... and the "intelligence making powers" were play-acting.

But what do you think the fictional builders had been? How did they build this Obelisk? According to the fictional universe story, these builders "had developed into non-corporeal beings"... meaning they once had been corporeal.

So we have a groups of corporeal, material, "natural" beings that fly through space and place weird obelisks on planets to further the developement of "naturally" arising species. And now the 1 Million Dollar question: where did they come from?
Again, I remind you of David Brin's "Uplift Universe."

The audience, atheist or not, would have no problems to "suspend disbelieve" and assume that this was just removing either natural evolution or intelligent creation one step further down the line.
But it doesn't resolve the question of where the line came from. Turtles all the way down?

And so your contradiction remains: you claim to have no problems of asserting a "natural" intelligent designer, who is just as material as his/her/its creation... when you want to argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But you keep ignoring the problem that you also assert that such a creator has in itself to be created.

In your last post you said that we misrepresent your position. But it quite the opposite: you misrepresent ours.

Several times now you have been told that we do not deny that anything could have been intelligently created. We only point out that this isn't necessary.

And if you were honest, you would have to admit that you agree with us.

Had it been suggested that it had been God, then some of the atheist audience would have gone berserk.

Because atheists aren't capable of understanding the concept of "fiction". Please, stop projecting!

 

[Radrook]

Let's ignore for a second that 2001 is a work of fiction, and that the builders of the Obelisk in reality were very natural intelligent creators... human prop builders.

But what do you think the fictional builders had been? How did they build this Obelisk? According to the fictional universe, these builders "had developed into non-corporeal beings"... meaning they once had been corporeal.

So we have a groups of corporeal, material, "natural" beings that fly through space and place weird obelisks on planets to further the developement of "naturally" arising species. And now the 1 Million Dollar question: where did they come from?
Again, I remind you of David Brin's "Uplift Universe."

The audience, atheist or not, would have no problems to "suspend disbelieve" and assume that this was just removing either natural evolution or intelligent creation one step further down the line.
But it doesn't resolve the question of where the line came from. Turtles all the way down?

And so your contradiction remains: you claim to have no problems of asserting a "natural" intelligent designer, who is just as material as his/her/its creation... when you want to argue against evolution or abiogenesis. But you keep ignoring the problem that you also assert that such a creator has in itself to be created.

In your last post you said that we misrepresent your position. But it quite the opposite: you misrepresent ours.

Several times now you have been told that we do not deny that anything could have been intelligently created. We only point out that this isn't necessary.

And if you were honest, you would have to admit that you agree with us.


Because atheists aren't capable of understanding the concept of "fiction". Please, stop projecting!

For the millionth time but to probably no avail, I am not arguing against theistic evolution. Please try to refrain from asking me what I mean by what I just said since I have explained it before. You claim that a designer is unnecessary? OK! But I disagree. So I guess we simply differ in opinion.

BTW
I never claimed that a creator of all that exists needs a creator. Also, the builders of the obelisk were depicted as extra dimensional in the novel itself which I read. So it seems as if extra dimensionality is OK as well as long as that extra dimensionality isn't referred to as heaven.

 

[bhsmte]

For the millionth time but to probably no avail, I am not arguing against theistic evolution. Please try to refrain from asking me what I mean by what I just said since I have explained it before. You claim that a designer is unnecessary? OK! But I disagree. So I guess we simply differ in opinion.

BTW
I never claimed that a creator of all that exists needs a creator.

You often state; "I never claimed". Care to tell us, what you do claim?

 

[Freodin]

For the millionth time but to probably no avail, I am not arguing against theistic evolution. Please try to refrain from asking me what I mean by what I just said since I have explained it before. You claim that a designer is unnecessary? OK! But I disagree. So I guess we simply differ in opinion.

BTW
I never claimed that a creator of all that exists needs a creator.

You just don't get it, do you? Your "explanations" contradict each other. They show that the basis behind your "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" is nothing but religious dogma.

We can summarize about every conversation with you in a few lines of dialogue:

You: "Life, intelligence, minds have to be intelligently created! They cannot arise without an intelligent creator!"
We: "So, you say God created this?"
You: "No way! I never said 'God'. You said 'God'. I mean a completely natural intelligent creator-mind, not 'God'."
We: "But according to your reasoning, such a natural intelligent creator-mind cannot arise naturally. It has in itself to be created by an intelligent creator-mind. And so would this. And its creator. And so on. So, where did they all come from?"
You: "The creator of everything is in itself uncreated."
We: "So, you mean 'God'?"

 

[bhsmte]

You just don't get it, do you? Your "explanations" contradict each other. They show that the basis behind your "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" is nothing but religious dogma.

We can summarize about every conversation with you in a few lines of dialogue:

You: "Life, intelligence, minds have to be intelligently created! They cannot arise without an intelligent creator!"
We: "So, you say God created this?"
You: "No way! I never said 'God'. You said 'God'. I mean a completely natural intelligent creator-mind, not 'God'."
We: "But according to your reasoning, such a natural intelligent creator-mind cannot arise naturally. It has in itself to be created by an intelligent creator-mind. And so would this. And its creator. And so on. So, where did they all come from?"
You: "The creator of everything is in itself uncreated."
We: "So, you mean 'God'?"

Great summary. We know what is coming next.

 

[Radrook]

You just don't get it, do you? Your "explanations" contradict each other. They show that the basis behind your "scientific theory of Intelligent Design" is nothing but religious dogma.

We can summarize about every conversation with you in a few lines of dialogue:

You: "Life, intelligence, minds have to be intelligently created! They cannot arise without an intelligent creator!"
We: "So, you say God created this?"
You: "No way! I never said 'God'. You said 'God'. I mean a completely natural intelligent creator-mind, not 'God'."
We: "But according to your reasoning, such a natural intelligent creator-mind cannot arise naturally. It has in itself to be created by an intelligent creator-mind. And so would this. And its creator. And so on. So, where did they all come from?"
You: "The creator of everything is in itself uncreated."
We: "So, you mean 'God'?"

I never claimed that the mind who designed is either natural or supernatural. I clearly and repeatedly explain that the nature of the mind is totally irrelevant to the inference of intelligent design but am constantly being ignored and accused of taking one of those two positions when I am taking neither of the twain. Of course if you insist in introducing a God concept into the discussion then sooner or later you might finally manage to extrude via attrition some kind of direct response to your religious question. But that is NOT what I am proposing for discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

I never claimed that the mind who designed is either natural or supernatural. I clearly and repeatedly explain that the nature of the mind is totally irrelevant to the inference of intelligent design but am constantly being ignored and accused of taking one of those two positions when I am taking neither of the twain

Well it is relevant if you think only mind can design mind--sooner or later you are going to have to come up with an undesigned mind.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.

It cannot arise within nature as we know it without being itself designed. That doesn't mean that the mind that has arisen is supernatural itself-does it?

Sounds too much like "A Wizard did it" for my liking...

Were the minds of the builders of the Obelisk in film 2001 A Space Odyssey, which dealt with the creation of mankind and possibly with the design of our universe supernatural? Did you find it unacceptable that they were not depicted as such? No, the audiences simply suspended disbelief and rationalized it a perfectly plausible. Had it been suggested that it had been God, then some of the atheist audience would have gone berserk.

Your complaint about a hypothetical is noted... as is your need to concoct an entire new level of reality ("the supernatural") in order to give your idea the illusion of plausibility.

 

[Radrook]

Sounds too much like "A Wizard did it" for my liking...



Your complaint about a hypothetical is noted... as is your need to concoct an entire new level of reality ("the supernatural") in order to give your idea the illusion of plausibility.

OK by me!