I thought I thoroughly discredited the design arguments here...
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30467.html

(January 5, 2015 at 3:36 am)BlackMason Wrote:

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

---

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.

Good to know.

Now let's be clear here. I'm not suggesting nature is actually designed. I just don't think that you have come up with proof that it isn't.

(January 5, 2015 at 3:36 am)BlackMason Wrote: 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.

Of course the extinction of the dodo didn't do the dodo any good. But that doesn't mean the dodo wasn't designed.

Not all prototypes lead to final products. And sometimes, you try an thing and it doesn't work, so you stop production. Sometimes, a perfectly useful thing is superseded by a better thing or even just something we prefer. We currently prefer CD's and MP3s to 8 Tracks. That doesn't do the 8 Tracks any good, but it doesn't mean we didn't design them.

We do breed dogs, cats, sheep, pigs and other domestic animals on purpose. We "design" them. We do the same with plants both decorative and edible. And sometimes we stop breeding a particular type or even species all together and it becomes extinct. But that doesn't mean the initial breeders didn't breed those types on purpose.

(January 5, 2015 at 3:36 am)BlackMason Wrote: 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.

I'm not sure anything came out of the dodos, but many modern animals do have extinct ancestors who could be thought of as a waste products.

(January 5, 2015 at 3:36 am)BlackMason Wrote: 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.

Nope. People do breed new species. We don't do it by crossing species though. We do it by changing each subsequent generation through selective breeding until the last generation could no longer mate with the first generation, even if the first generation were still alive. That's how natural evolution works too.

You are arguing that nature is not designed because there are extinct species. And I am saying that when people design things, we do create things which we later abandon. Therefore abandoned things in nature aren't proof that there was no designer of nature, only that if there is a designer, it sometimes abandons things.

(January 5, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:56 pm)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.

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.

None of the above.

Our Original Sin equals Plato's State of Oblivion, and therefore shepherds are good news, and are good news without even saying a thing. They just give us a sense of belonging so we will know where the manger is at. That is the only reason for this and then please know that the manger was missing in Matthew as an early foreshadow that hell will be destiny for him.

Limbo would be with no shepherds to guide the us, and that comes with communion with the saints in heaven to show direction for us, also again without saying a word.

Original Sin does not equal sinful, and shepherds also are inside the Cave with only a connection to the outside and therefore can be our guide.

Of course they are allegory but be reminded here that we are the illusion our self, as in each one of us while inside the cave.

The shepherds in the Gospels merely were insights in the mind of Joseph the Jew, but that is not part of the argument here.

Quote: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.

Yes I know, but that also makes the Gnostics an illegitimate group because the -ism does not belong in the same way as the -ity does not belong to the word Christian. Let's just call "the mind of Christ" the end that we seek where gnosis would be ours, and would that not make Gnosticism and Christianity a denial of that and a contradiction in terms?

It is just philosophy dear, but these words are crucial in seeing the end while we are believers and doubters looking for destiny our self.

The answer is very simple and that is "know who you are" in the end and that can be called Christian (if you like or not like), but that surely means that religion is not any part of it then = no -ity or -ism for sure.

(January 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Chili Wrote: Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

I don't care much for Limbo, but I kinda liked Oblivion. It was fun to play, especially with all the mods. And there were many caves to explore in Oblivion.

Here is a few lines on my proof for the existence of God.

To prove the existence of God is actually very easy to do, but when you ask for marks of a design in nature the problem already begins with nature not having any substance of its own to show a design. It therefore is that we must look at beings to see.

Then if beings are said to be what we look at they immediately are the subject to which changes take place, and if that is true they are not the being in charge, on top of which changes are only needed when needed such as Evolutionary Theory would have us know. These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside. After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made, or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

So now we can place involution opposite to evolution and that would place energy opposite entropy with entropy being the period in life that we would call post menopause when eternity is seen from the inside out. This is an assumption I make based on the word meno which is the Greek word for "I remain" that would implicate eternal for us. It is from here that neologic induction can be made to infer wisdom into our speeches so that the next generation will benefit from the life forms we see in our past lives. This would be where speeches can be deductive, seductive and inductive that in the extreme means life or death, with, true enough, an undistributed middle somewhere in between.

For this to be possible all sentient beings are divided on their own mind and this would only be so that the being has an agency outside to be consciously aware and know first hand what exactly is going on 'out there.' This data would be tied down in what we call RNA to be the building blocks for DNA, and that is how Evolution works from my point of view.

Then let me add that Gen.1, 2 and 3 makes this very clear with the postulation of "God" in Gen. 1 as the tension (emerging first cause) between "Lord God" who as man (generic or genus) is the insider in Gen.2 from where "like-god" is the human condition in Gen.3 as the outsider who wants to see for himself -- and actually is doing the dirty work for man as seen from the inside.

So what more do we need if the Intelligent Design is at work right in the bible we read?

This proposition is confirmed with Jesus being the manifestation of Logos (and thus is without being himself and therefore is Omega in his own right with woman as the Alpha in coming to be as Christ in the end.

(January 5, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Chili Wrote:

---

Here is a few lines on my proof for the existence of God.

To prove the existence of God is actually very easy to do, but when you ask for marks of a design in nature the problem already begins with nature not having any substance of its own to show a design. It therefore is that we must look at beings to see.

Then if beings are said to be what we look at they immediately are the subject to which changes take place, and if that is true they are not the being in charge, on top of which changes are only needed when needed such as Evolutionary Theory would have us know. These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside. After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made, or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

So now we can place involution opposite to evolution and that would place energy opposite entropy with entropy being the period in life that we would call post menopause when eternity is seen from the inside out. This is an assumption I make based on the word meno which is the Greek word for "I remain" that would implicate eternal for us. It is from here that neologic induction can be made to infer wisdom into our speeches so that the next generation will benefit from the life forms we see in our past lives. This would be where speeches can be deductive, seductive and inductive that in the extreme means life or death, with, true enough, an undistributed middle somewhere in between.

For this to be possible all sentient beings are divided on their own mind and this would only be so that the being has an agency outside to be consciously aware and know first hand what exactly is going on 'out there.' This data would be tied down in what we call RNA to be the building blocks for DNA, and that is how Evolution works from my point of view.

Then let me add that Gen.1, 2 and 3 makes this very clear with the postulation of "God" in Gen. 1 as the tension (emerging first cause) between "Lord God" who as man (generic or genus) is the insider in Gen.2 from where "like-god" is the human condition in Gen.3 as the outsider who wants to see for himself -- and actually is doing the dirty work for man as seen from the inside.

So what more do we need if the Intelligent Design is at work right in the bible we read?

This proposition is confirmed with Jesus being the manifestation of Logos (and thus is without being himself and therefore is Omega in his own right with woman as the Alpha in coming to be as Christ in the end.

---

That is the most absurd pile of rotting word salad so far this year.

Congratulations on convoluted stupidity and vacuous views.

(January 5, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Chili Wrote: These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside.

No, they "must'nt".

Quote:After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made,

No, it isn't.

Quote: or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

No such requirement.

That's about as far as I could follow. What -is- your native language, btw?

(January 5, 2015 at 7:37 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Chili Wrote: Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

I don't care much for Limbo, but I kinda liked Oblivion. It was fun to play, especially with all the mods. And there were many caves to explore in Oblivion.

I do not think that your citation is my line.

(January 5, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Chili Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 7:37 pm)abaris Wrote: I don't care much for Limbo, but I kinda liked Oblivion. It was fun to play, especially with all the mods. And there were many caves to explore in Oblivion.

I do not think that your citation is my line.

Oh it is. I just gave it some meaning for the unenlightened.

(January 5, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Chili Wrote: Here is a few lines on my proof for the existence of God.

lol - proof no less! Finally! We've been waiting......so god damn long Chili. So long! And now today the day has come!

My favorite bit. Can you make up shit this rich in pure, unadulterated absurdity without being submerged in religious bullshit and being under its toxic spell? I think not. Exhibit "A":

Quote:So now we can place involution opposite to evolution and that would place energy opposite entropy with entropy being the period in life that we would call post menopause when eternity is seen from the inside out. This is an assumption I make based on the word meno which is the Greek word for "I remain" that would implicate eternal for us. It is from here that neologic induction can be made to infer wisdom into our speeches so that the next generation will benefit from the life forms we see in our past lives. This would be where speeches can be deductive, seductive and inductive that in the extreme means life or death, with, true enough, an undistributed middle somewhere in between.

Totally awesome in Bullshit Density, approaching the theoretical maximum value of 1.00. I rate this fragment a solid 0.99 in BsD.

Not sure where Chili's spoutings rate on the BDSM index, but I digress, as that's a topic for another day and/or post.