Intelligent design Venn diagram

[Silent3]

I just posted this on my Facebook page. I thought about holding back, because I know this will piss a few people off (like my born-again sister), but dammit, I like it, and it's MY Facebook page! :)

[Speck Tater]

1. Brilliant! That really sums it up! Well done. nt.

[Beako]

2. I'd love to post it on my Facebook too...

[la la]

3. excellent ! n/t

[humblebum]

4. How foolish are some people to not realize that something just

popped into being from nothingness. The old notions that "from nothing comes nothing" and that "something cannot create itself" belong in the dustbin of history.

[Iggo]

5. Why do they have to invent a phantom intelligent being to explain it?

How on earth is that any better?

[iris27]

6. Are you attempting to be facetious here?

Somewhere at the beginning of things, *something* has to be eternal. Does it make more sense for energy to be eternal, or for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present deity to be eternal?

Only when you're looking at the world from inside a fully-ingrained system of belief does the idea of "God as first cause" not IMMEDIATELY beg the question, "But what created God?" I know. I was there, once.

[trotsky]

7. Where did your god come from, then?

If "from nothing comes from nothing" and "something cannot create itself"?

[humblebum]

10. then "something" always existed, which begs the question

Is/was IT alive or not?

[trotsky]

11. You didn't answer my question.

Please try again, then I'll answer yours.

[Silent3]

23. Perhaps he'll just rephrase...

...how there is an answer, and count that as giving one. :)

[trotsky]

29. Maybe, but then I'm sure I am way too stupid...

to understand just how deep, complex, and thorough the answer "goddidit" really is.

[humblebum]

30. Well now let's see... If it wasn't a god... then it must be... Oh yeah...

nothing! That's right. Nothing had to have done it. That explains everything and sounds so much more reasonable than "goddidit". Silly me.

[trotsky]

32. Can you say "false dichotomy"?

I knew that you could!

[humblebum]

33. Can you say " It's all an educated guess"? Somehow I don't think you can. nt

[trotsky]

34. You tell me what's "educated" about saying "goddidit."

What questions does that answer?

But more importantly, what NEW questions does that raise?

Kinda sad that you have nothing but logical fallacies and personal attacks left.

[humblebum]

35. An educated guess leading to that conclusion would be the logical empiricism

that you would probably use + ontological enquiry (something rarely used by atheistic thinkers) + teleological enquiry which can definitely point to an intelligent origin. That would be an educated guess based on established criteria.

[trotsky]

37. Ah yes, the same "answer" you've kept trying over and over.

Inventing a field of study (and the pre-ordained conclusion of said field) as if that actually answered the question.

But hilariously, no matter how sophisticated you try to make it sound (and others have done that far, far better than you), it still boils right down to GODDIDIT. No explanation whatsoever, and in fact a whole new set of unanswerable questions.

Keep trying. At least it keeps you & other apologists busy instead of harassing others door-to-door.

[humblebum]

40. That "field of study" has been in existence far longer than

anything you have put forth, and it demonstrates just how limited the so called "free thinking" view can be.

[Silent3]

42. Yet another substance-free response

Are you ever going to tire of telling us vaguely that something out there that you won't say confirms something you're not actually going to say?

[humblebum]

43. You have shown that you are incapable of conducting a coherent,

logical argument with your only defense being ridicule and an "I'm right, you're wrong and that's the way it is" attitude. Still you add nothing to the conversation.

[Silent3]

44. Forget about me...

...if I'm so unworthy of your great wisdom, and fill in the details for the rest of those reading here.

You don't need a red carpet rolled out to welcome your towering intellect into our humble midst, do you?

Your supposed problems with my attitude are nothing but a convenient excuse for you to hide behind, so you don't have to expose the fact you've got nothing worth saying to say. You've done nothing in this whole thread, addressing me or anyone else, but gainsay what you don't agree with, offering nothing of substance in rebuttal.

[Silent3]

36. How is it you just don't get that you're just replacing one unknown...

...for another unknown?

Where did God come from? If it wasn't SuperGod that made God... then it must be... Oh yeah... nothing!
Where did SuperGod come from? If it wasn't SuperSuperGod that made SuperGod... then it must be... Oh yeah... nothing!

You either abandon this silly infinite regression, admit that the question of ultimate origins might be beyond conventional human time-oriented thinking about how things exist, don't exist, and come into existence (thoughts that become pretty meaningless if time itself is a property of the universe), or you declare that one special thing has either the characteristic that it can either always exist or can spontaneously spring into existence.

If you go for that third option, your big "Hah! Hah! Oh yeah... nothing!" bit, which you apparently think is such a big "gotcha!", applies just as much to you as anyone else, with or without putting a deity into the picture.

Now, I'll save you some time: I'll take it for granted that you next tell me how there are "other epistemologies", not explaining what they are and doing nothing more than hinting that they somehow solve the above problems.

[trotsky]

38. Sorry, nitpick.

It was SuperDuperGod that made SuperGod.

You may return to your argument.

[Silent3]

39. Damn

That fancy theological lingo gets tricky sometimes.

[Silent3]

8. Something has to have popped into being from nothingness...

...whether it's a deity or the universe itself. If we wish to create a special class of object that is self-creating, or by definition doesn't need creation, there's no compelling reason that object has to be an intelligence, that it can't simply be the physical universe itself.

The only alternative to something popping into existence out of nothingness is to accept that our human imaginations, tied deeply to the way we perceive time, to the way we think of things changing through a flow of time -- first not existing, then existing -- simply aren't up to the task of dealing with questions of ultimate origin. Being out of our depth to understand ultimate questions of origin, however, would leave us much out of our depth in proposing a deity as a solution as it would in proposing any other solutions apart from saying "we just don't know".

At any rate, "Intelligent Design" as a movement is, aside from variant interpretations by a few token non-fundamentalists that can be pointed to for political cover, nothing more than repackaged Biblically-literal creationism, or a rant that tries to tear down Darwinian evolution using bad, long-discredited counterarguments, offering nothing better as an alternative explanation than "God did it!". Even non-creationist "Intelligent Design" concerns itself with much more than the sorry old "something from nothing" excuse for God you're trying to peddle here.

[humblebum]

9. If you say something popped into being from nothingness

then you are violating every rule of physics that I know of; plus the fact that you are using purely subjective reasoning - something very unscientific. It's an un-winnable argument. It's an unwinnable argument regardless of where you stand on the subject. Even Stephen Hawking admits that his positivist viewpoint will only take him so far towards explaining ultimate origins. I commend him for that.

[trotsky]

12. Then you aren't familiar with the laws of physics, I'm afraid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

[humblebum]

14. You are still not dealing with true "nothingness" nt

[trotsky]

15. And neither are you. n/t

[Silent3]

13. The only point I'm trying to "win" is that proposing God...

...as an answer doesn't help. When there is no good answer, "I don't know" is what "wins". Are you trying to say "God did it!" is a better, more solid, more defensible answer than "I don't know"? That theistic explanations are even equally defensible to admitting one doesn't know the answer?

[humblebum]

16. You are still addressing the question from a basically positivist

viewpoint(nothing metaphysical, intuitive or emotive), which automatically eliminates any ontological or teleological epistemology. When you add these other epistemologies to the mix, a strong case for an eternal diety can be made. If you laugh at such a viewpoint then you also laugh at Einstein view that some kind of a diety indeed exists.

[Silent3]

17. If there's a strong case, make it

As for Einstein's deity, that deity is just the universe itself and the natural laws that govern it. Einstein's deity is neither an intelligent agency nor a willful personality.

And still none of this amounts to a reason to defend ID, which isn't about the beginning of everything, which isn't about why there's something rather than nothing, it's about the evolution of complex life and a supposed requirement that it would take a directing intelligence to accomplish that.

If you're stuck in the creationist mindset that can't or won't even differentiate between cosmology and biology, my hopes dim even further than you've got some "strong case" up your sleeve to present.

I sure as hope it doesn't come down to something like, "Physics says you can't get something from nothing! You're being a positivist, so I'm going to stomp my feet and hold you to my blinkered view of what physics says! But I'm not a positivist, so I don't have to stick just to physics! I can use emotion and intuition to make up my own ideas of how God solves it all, and my rules say because it feels that way to me, deep down in my heart, that's is proof enough!"

Whatever your "strong case", I've still heard nothing yet about how it's better than simply saying "I don't know" either.

[humblebum]

20. Actually, I do subscribe to the positivist or post-positivist view as

far as it will take you, but beyond that point it is merely a best-guess scenario based on other epistemologies. Full ontological enquiry can provide solid subjective "evidence" pointing to an intelligent source. In any case, no one can say with absolute certainty that there was or was not an intelligent creator. Absolute objective "proof" is only possible in science and mathematics. In all other disciplines varying degrees of subjectivity are required to arrive at an answer to those ultimate questions. Logical positivism itself is being used less and less because of its limitations, however, some still cling to it.

[Silent3]

21. You keep repeating that this "evidence" is there...

...and you keep on not presenting it. Hint: finding yet another way to re-word how there's evidence or proof won't count as presenting that evidence or proof either.

In any case, no one can say with absolute certainty that there was or was not an intelligent creator.

Which makes "I don't know" a better answer than giving up and saying "God did it" whenever you get to a point where you can't explain things further. Lack of "absolute certainty" is most certainly not a good defense for ID.

Absolute objective "proof" is only possible in science and mathematics.

Straw man. Who is asking for "absolute objective 'proof'" of anything in this thread? What does "absolute objective 'proof'" have to do with jumping in and defending the idiocy if ID?

I can't prove with 100% mathematical certainty that the Scientology tale of Xenu isn't true. Would you be happy if I grant ID that as much "credit" as I grant Xenu?

I'm losing track of everything you're still evading and side stepping at this point. You haven't dealt with the difference between cosmology and biology yet either.

[humblebum]

24. What I've said so far was to try and explain how using different epistemologies

can help you arrive at a more specific answer when logical positivism (logical empiricism) doesn't go far enough. Out of your area, I'm beginning to see.

[Silent3]

25. Well, gee, Professor, let's see you demonstrate your expertise...

...with those different epistemologies. I'll try to keep up even though it must be soooo beyond me. :eyes:

Or is the "epistemology" you have in mind the one where, gosh darnit, you JUST KNOW, so you don't have squat you can demonstrate beyond vigorous assertion?

PS: You still haven't come close to dealing with the relationship between ID and the much more basic God/No God question, or the difference between cosmology and biology. I didn't know cowardly evasion was a special advanced form of epistemology.

[humblebum]

26. It's pretty obvious you have nothing to add to the conversation, so

you rely on temper tantrums and blather. Just suffice it to say that your methods of reasoning are not the only ones around and yes, ID and the God/No God question are quite related.

[Silent3]

27. The man who has nothing to say tells me I have nothing to add.

That's rich. And amusingly, you once more took the opportunity to repeat that there's something you could say... (drum roll, please)... without saying it.

Your defense of ID is just as much an empty farce as ID itself.

[AlecBGreen]

18. 2 good points

"...our human imaginations, tied deeply to the way we perceive time, to the way we think of things changing through a flow of time -- first not existing, then existing -- simply aren't up to the task of dealing with questions of ultimate origin."

"At any rate, "Intelligent Design" as a movement is ... nothing more than repackaged Biblically-literal creationism, or a rant that tries to tear down Darwinian evolution using bad, long-discredited counterarguments..."

[charlie]

19. Look, there's Ben Stein!

Right in the middle. You'd recognize that pallid, monotonous pixel anywhere.

He's waving a petition to name everything outside the circles the Sea of Nazis.

[ironbark]

22. "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together

(as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? "
Quran.

;-)

[frogmarch]

28. Haha! Beautiful.

:thumbsup:

[Ready4Change]

31. Like.

.

[Christa]

41. K & R

I want to post it on my FB as well, but I have a few believer friends I do not want to offend

Or maybe I am just scared someone will torch my home. It is entirely possible here in the bible belt.