DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

No it's you who is compartmentalizing like you have done before

---

It was explained well

[Anomalocaris]

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

There is no lord.  That’s the problem with you.

---

She was a psychiatric case, but no one who hears of miracle of Christianity would surprised by Christians seeking validation in mental illness.

She was not.  It is not funny to laugh at psychiatric patients as well. 
[

Of course one so muddleheaded as you, who adheres to the religion that kept itself alive for 2000 years by pretending insanity is wisdom, would not see a psychiatric wreckage arguing Out of the full flowering of her madness for your religion To be the nutcase case she is.

But she is more than just a psychiatric case, deep as her madness might be.  I would never laugh at her psychiatric affliction.  I do, however, find the rest of her richly deserving of ridicule.

But on this occasion, my laughter is not prompted by her risibility, great as that risibility might be.   I direct my laughter at you, for you make yourself equally risible by remaining so besotted by Your utterly ridiculous religion such that even though you are nowhere near as clinically mad as she, you would see the hysterical ramblings of her madness to be good arguments for your religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

An argument against the existence of CDFGod god by way of intelligent design.

First, my definition.

Intelligence is a force, F, that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. It acts to maximize future freedom of action, or keep options open, with some strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures, S up to some future time horizon, τ.

F = T ∇ S

Here are my assumptions.  


1. Design is only explicable in terms of intelligence.

2. We are designed.

3. CDFgod is asserted to be the existent intelligence(1) responsible for our design(2).

4. A necessary property of CDFgod's existence (3) is that our design (2) is explained by it's intelligence (1)

Here are my assertions.  Evolutionary processes are just such a force F.  They act to maximize future freedom of action, or keep options open, with the strength T of replication, and the diversity of possible accessible futures S of modification, up to the future time horizon t in which no further evolutionary processes are possible.  

Now, my inference.  Because we have been designed, and because the intelligence responsible for that design is evolutionary process, our design is explained by an intelligence other than CDFgods....ergo it lacks a necessary property of it's existence, and so...does not exist.  

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

Why would it be problematic for me to see you confirm assumptions three and four, while strongly implying agreement with my assertions regarding the sufficiency of evolutionary process in an explanation for assumption two?

All you're doing is confirming the validity of my inference. Evolutionary process, rather than your god, explains our design. Since your gods existence is predicate on the claim that your god explains our design, and in point of fact that you have just acknowledge..something else explains that....your god does not exist.

Maybe some other god does...but not CDFgod.

Unless you'd like to take another crack at it, lol. It's a fucking ridiculous argument, but it was purpose built just for you, so that no matter what you chose to reject or confirm...you'd just be tripping over your own dick.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist. I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context. Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.

That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates. Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong. Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean...assumption 4? You're as bad as he is, lol. CDFgods existence has been defined as a state of affairs wherein the statement "CDFgods intelligence explains our design" is true.

[pocaracas]

You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist.  I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say  "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context.  Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.

I'd say that, when people are discussing religion, "existence" pertains to only non-fictional things or characters; physical existence.

Certainly, there must be some physicality to fictional things, as they must somehow occupy the mental space, but those are solely in that mental realm, and without any presence outside of minds.

Scooby Doo exists as a fictional character, as a mental construct, well known to be a human invention and not an actual existing dog outside of human minds.

The concept of god, however, if it is fiction, is not well known to be a human construct, because it has been in human minds since before the advent of writing. Couple that unknown with the generations of people convinced of the actual existence of the god character and you have grounds for much misinformation.
On the other hand, if the god concept is not fiction, its apparent absence out of human minds does raise the question of what is the role of the clergy. Are they actual representatives or charlatans with (mostly) good intentions?

That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates.  Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong.  Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.

I agree.
If it's unknown, should the starting point be "I believe this thing exists and I'll do anything to find it and convince others that it exists so that they too can look for it", or "I have no reason to accept that this thing exists, but if it is found then lets add it to our collection of knowledge"?

[LastPoet]

She was a good poster.  Sucks she got banned.  I wonder what she did to get banned.  If a moderator sees this if they could PM me I would appreciate it?  It must have been posting those videos but she stopped when she was told to.

Wait, how do you know she was told to do anything?

[no one]

The big ball of energy said so.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist.  I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say  "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context.  Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.

I'd say that, when people are discussing religion, "existence" pertains to only non-fictional things or characters; physical existence.

Certainly, there must be some physicality to fictional things, as they must somehow occupy the mental space, but those are solely in that mental realm, and without any presence outside of minds.

Scooby Doo exists as a fictional character, as a mental construct, well known to be a human invention and not an actual existing dog outside of human minds.

The concept of god, however, if it is fiction, is not well known to be a human construct, because it has been in human minds since before the advent of writing. Couple that unknown with the generations of people convinced of the actual existence of the god character and you have grounds for much misinformation.
On the other hand, if the god concept is not fiction, its apparent absence out of human minds does raise the question of what is the role of the clergy. Are they actual representatives or charlatans with (mostly) good intentions?

That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates.  Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong.  Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.

I agree.
If it's unknown, should the starting point be "I believe this thing exists and I'll do anything to find it and convince others that it exists so that they too can look for it", or "I have no reason to accept that this thing exists, but if it is found then lets add it to our collection of knowledge"?

But what you're making is an ascertain that can't be validated.  You can't conclusively and exhaustively demonstrate that the only possible form is only rooted in fiction. So if you come to a conclusion prematurely, what good does it do you or anybody else?  There would be more value in saying,

"I don't believe it exists, but it may exist in some form beyond my understanding. Let's continue to study until we can assure that the information is conclusive and exhaustive of all other possibilities"

Now you haven't committed to anything, it doesn't change your overall view that it doesn't exist, and it continues to allow for unbiased study.  Once you get there, then you can expand your study and knowledge to a bazillion other things.  Say something does exist...

Does it exist organically or inorganically?
Is it a solid, liquid, gas, or can its form be modified or itself or something else?
How does it both interact and impact the environment?

The reason we use things like the scientific method is so that knowledge becomes expansive rather then exhaustive.  Even if we rule something out, we can move on to the next relationship, and so on indefinitely.

[pocaracas]

I'd say that, when people are discussing religion, "existence" pertains to only non-fictional things or characters; physical existence.

Certainly, there must be some physicality to fictional things, as they must somehow occupy the mental space, but those are solely in that mental realm, and without any presence outside of minds.

Scooby Doo exists as a fictional character, as a mental construct, well known to be a human invention and not an actual existing dog outside of human minds.

The concept of god, however, if it is fiction, is not well known to be a human construct, because it has been in human minds since before the advent of writing. Couple that unknown with the generations of people convinced of the actual existence of the god character and you have grounds for much misinformation.
On the other hand, if the god concept is not fiction, its apparent absence out of human minds does raise the question of what is the role of the clergy. Are they actual representatives or charlatans with (mostly) good intentions?




I agree.
If it's unknown, should the starting point be "I believe this thing exists and I'll do anything to find it and convince others that it exists so that they too can look for it", or "I have no reason to accept that this thing exists, but if it is found then lets add it to our collection of knowledge"?

But what you're making is an ascertain that can't be validated.  You can't conclusively and exhaustively demonstrate that the only possible form is only rooted in fiction. So if you come to a conclusion prematurely, what good does it do you or anybody else?  There would be more value in saying,

"I don't believe it exists, but it may exist in some form beyond my understanding. Let's continue to study until we can assure that the information is conclusive and exhaustive of all other possibilities"

Now you haven't committed to anything, it doesn't change your overall view that it doesn't exist, and it continues to allow for unbiased study.  Once you get there, then you can expand your study and knowledge to a bazillion other things.  Say something does exist...

Does it exist organically or inorganically?
Is it a solid, liquid, gas, or can its form be modified or itself or something else?
How does it both interact and impact the environment?

The reason we use things like the scientific method is so that knowledge becomes expansive rather then exhaustive.  Even if we rule something out, we can move on to the next relationship, and so on indefinitely.

I'm sorry.... I'm not sure what you're answering to, nor what your point is supposed to be.
Can you rephrase your idea, please?