I may not always see eye to eye with you Wooters, but if you'd like that tequila, or any other drink you might be craving at the moment, I'm buying.

(January 3, 2015 at 12:33 am)Heywood Wrote: When intellect is not a component of the system then the system is found to be designed.

[Citation needed]

---

(January 3, 2015 at 12:54 am)Heywood Wrote: Maybe you or Rhythm can come up with an example of an evolutionary system which doesn't require an intellect to either design it or be a component of it. An objective example and not something you believe didn't require intellect as a matter of faith.

Solar systems. Rivers.

(January 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(January 4, 2015 at 8:11 am)BlackMason Wrote: Someone here gave us a Matt Dillahunty explanation about the necessity of contrasting nature to determine design. So I'm not gonna write on that. Instead I want to make an argument against the teleology of nature.

1) Nature has goals or nature does not have goals.
2) There have been many creatures that have come into existence.
3) There have been many creatures that have since become extinct.
4) Extinction has no purpose.

Therefore nature has no goals.

I rather like that. But much as I enjoy Matt Dillahunty, I think it fails on premise number four. Many design processes create either prototypes, or waste either by accident or as a necessary part of the process. Even human directed evolution often results in failed or intermediary progeny which are then killed or not allowed to breed. So I can certainly imagine that extinction could have a purpose. It could be the destruction an intermediary step, destruction of a prototype, or a necessary waste product.

Jenny, thanks for your reply. I want to clear something up. That was my own argument not Dillahunty's.

Extinction is akin to ceasing the production of product. A prototype results in a viable product that gets taken to market. Nothing come out of extinction because of it's finality. You cannot tell me the extinction of dodos served a purpose for dodos. They are all dead.

Waste products by accident you say? I've learnt a little about by-products meself. However the by-product objection also fails because something must come out of the process that resulted in the by-product.

With human directed evolution are you talking about interspecies breeding? The fact that a mule can't breed is proof that nature was not the cause of it's existence. Natural selection would not work if a creature couldn't breed. This too fails. Remember nature is the subject.

(January 5, 2015 at 12:53 am)Chili Wrote:

(January 4, 2015 at 9:37 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Plato did not inspire the NT Scriptures; however neo-Platonic thought has certainly influenced Christian theology.

I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

Original sin is his absence of glow while in oblivion, and that makes known the Being in being and so halo's are for the Saints only and that very well means heaven on earth was outside the Cave....

You have me completely baffled. Do you know how to make sentence diagrams?

Plato's cave analogy will take you Gnosticism easier that to Roman Catholicism.

(January 5, 2015 at 8:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:53 am)Chili Wrote: I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

Original sin is his absence of glow while in oblivion, and that makes known the Being in being and so halo's are for the Saints only and that very well means heaven on earth was outside the Cave....

You have me completely baffled. Do you know how to make sentence diagrams?

Plato's cave analogy will take you Gnosticism easier that to Roman Catholicism.

No sry, I have never learned that in school but did my BA in Canada with a B+ in the end. So it is not that I do not know how to write, but more that my perspective is so much different then most.

Even the word Gnosticism reeks with ignorance if gnostic means 'to know.' And would that translate into 'knowism' then?

Of course the same is true with the word "Christianity" that cannot be perceived to exist if the word Christian means the end of religion where destiny is found in Christen domain.

(January 5, 2015 at 8:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:53 am)Chili Wrote: I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

Original sin is his absence of glow while in oblivion, and that makes known the Being in being and so halo's are for the Saints only and that very well means heaven on earth was outside the Cave....

You have me completely baffled. Do you know how to make sentence diagrams?

Plato's cave analogy will take you Gnosticism easier that to Roman Catholicism.

When your sentence structure et al baffles ChadWooters, you know you're really off the deep end.

(January 5, 2015 at 1:03 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 8:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You have me completely baffled. Do you know how to make sentence diagrams?

Plato's cave analogy will take you Gnosticism easier that to Roman Catholicism.

When your sentence structure et al baffles ChadWooters, you know you're really off the deep end.

That's OK too, and I like my deep end.

(January 4, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Chili Wrote: Causation is not a premise but the is the result of conflict when a stand is made. God always is, or what I call God always is the positive in each and every stand that yields a conclusion in the end.

This is where God is truth that is prior to us, also in the new to expand as if it is our own playmate to entertain. We may call this curious for now, and that is the reason why science can be exhilarating as we expand the God in us and do greater things as time moves on. This so is how we create the wisdom of God in us and is why God can be no greater than me for me, and in that same way your God can be no greater than you for you.

When you put it like that....

Well, I'll be fornicated in the vestibulary or perhaps the ventricle! (Slink away foul priest!) My transmeditation, no!, my transmediation, shall not wander from thine own bung hole, neither whole or in part.

Nor shall the sword sleep in my hand, nay!, the veritable quandary! Yes! Is it not so and self-evident and true and filled with truthiness? and of course, no!

Clearly the rhinoceros/baby doll paradox/axiom.

A mind is a terrible thing to taste my good man. Terrible!

(January 5, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Chili Wrote: No sry, I have never learned that in school but did my BA in Canada with a B+ in the end. So it is not that I do not know how to write, but more that my perspective is so much different then most.

Lookie there! Two sentences in a row that make sense. See, you can do it.

But the problem with the sentence below is not just that it attempts to convey a strange point of view; the problem is that it doesn't actually convey much of anything:

Quote:I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

It may be that your mind is in Plato's allegorical cave or limbo for that matter. But from there, neither the shepherds, nor your words, bring us any news at all. If there is good news for those in oblivion, it isn't coming out in translation. Why is limbo like Plato's cave, or worse yet since the cave is allegorical, in it? Surely you didn't really mean the shepherds (how did shepherds get into this sentence anyway?) are good news. Did you mean they brought good news? Did they bring this news from Plato's cave/limbo, or did they come from Plato's cave/limbo, or both? How do you come from an allegory? Or perhaps you meant we are in the cave and shepherds are messengers to us. Who called sin oblivion? Plato? The shepherds? You? God? Is it the shepherds who are in a state of sin? Or Plato? Or us?

I could recast your sentence to say a number of things you might have meant:

Limbo is like Plato's cave, and the shepherds are messengers from the outside bringing us good news about how to escape what Plato called sinful oblivion.

Or:

Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

Or

Plato's cave and limbo are both allegories for a particular state of sin which Plato called oblivion, and allegorical shepherds emerging from state of sin are good news.

Your sentence could be interpreted any one of the above ways and more. But none of them has much to do with anything I know about the allegory of the cave, limbo, or the shepherds in the gospels for that matter. So, even if your sentence were grammatically clear, more explanation would be in order.

Moving on to your latest missive. And it isn't much better, though unlike the above, at least the sentence structure works:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Chili Wrote: Even the word Gnosticism reeks with ignorance if gnostic means 'to know.' And would that translate into 'knowism' then?

Gnostic does mean to know, but you are confusing the Greek word gnostic, with the religious groups (there were a number of them) called the Gnostics.

Quote:Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "learned", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world. Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others. However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.

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

(January 5, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Chili Wrote: Of course the same is true with the word "Christianity" that cannot be perceived to exist if the word Christian means the end of religion where destiny is found in Christen domain.

Once again something has gotten lost in the translation between your mind and your words. For one thing, I think you've lost track of the subject of your sentence. Is it really the word "Christianity" that does not exist (or isn't perceived) or do you mean Christianity itself doesn't exist? Do you mean something different by "perceived to exist" than to be perceived, or just to exist? The phrase "where destiny is found in [the] Christ[ian] domain," doesn't appear to modify anything in particular, it just dangles there floating around meaninglessly.

And what makes you think the word Christian means the end of religion? Literally, the word "Christian" means follower of Christ. Christ simply means "the anointed." Christians identify Jesus as the Christ, or sometimes just Christ.