Kay17:


I actually meant both as examples of the question and difficult it is to decide. Especially with the varying perspectives.

And on the perspective issue there is also the obvious fact that we are constantly imposing form unto our perceptions.

I've just been looking at the Pollack paintings. I wasn't aware of the artist before. Automatically I began to see forms, people in crowds, traffic, bushes and bramble etc…. A wonderful powerful attribute of the human mind that computers cannot (yet) replicate is our ability to make approximations. We can look at a map of england and call the shape a triangle. We can look at nigeria's map and call the shape a square. We can call the map of africa a gun shape.

It's that phenomena of seeing faces in the clouds. Of course there are no faces in the clouds or on the moon, but whatever the actually shape is we can approximate it to a face.

To what extent are the designs that we see in the world merely approximations of what is really there. So we are basically imposing forms and designs onto the world which might not actually be there.


Rorschach Test

DeepSight:



By the way, I no longer know whether its apt to refer to God as an "Intelligent Designer." Intelligence is something of the material sphere, and whatever attributes the Divine may have may probably not be described as intelligence in the way that we use the word.

Interesting.

We have come a long way, haven't we, sire ?

DeepSight:


If we hold that all existence and reality (the universe) as we know it was caused by an Intelligent Designer, then it will surely be impossible to show anything that would not have hallmarks of design about it. Anything at all. It will therefore be a strange question to demand of an advocate of intelligent design, that he produces a thing that is not designed. This would be a contradiction similar to asking a person who believes that shapes are made by men, to produce a square circle. It's both an impossible and unreasonable request which Iredia should not have taken up at all, rather than begin to refer to water.
.

No sire,
There always needs to be a benchmark from which we make comparisons.

The word " design ", itself evokes varying degrees of complexity. A purposeful aggregation of different elements, different properties, different linkages, different forms and functions.

When we see a Channel suit , for example, we automatically see the difference between it and the patch patch improvised work done by the unskilled hands of grandma or auntie.

PastorAIO:


I'm sorry, I thought you were using it to support your case. So are you for the definition or not. Don't hide behind google one minute and then disown it the next.

Human thoughts are contained in human reality. This is probably the most intelligent thing you've said since I've started discussing with you.

Could you please tell us how you would measure a human thought? You say it's impossible to measure God's thoughts. I presume therefore that you know how to measure human thoughts.

Stop presuming. My point is that as God is eternal, he has higher thoughts than us, as he see's everything in our reality, including all of time

plaetton:


No sire,
There always needs to be a benchmark from which we make comparisons.

The word " design ", itself evokes varying degrees of complexity. A purposeful aggregation of different elements, different properties, different linkages, different forms and functions.

When we see a Channel suit , for example, we automatically see the difference between it and the patch patch improvised work done by the unskilled hands of grandma or auntie.

If I wake up in another universe and see a signboard saying Joshua, did you bring your dissertation with you, I would certainly not doubt that intelligence is behind such a conundrum.

Specificity, and not just aesthetics in design, are present in our universe.

"raw materials", that have resulted in this universe as we have it have been brought together simultaneously in the most amazing combinations-combinations too amazing to have just happened by accident. That is the argument for design.

-Ravi Zacharias

plaetton:


No sire,
There always needs to be a benchmark from which we make comparisons.

The word " design ", itself evokes varying degrees of complexity. A purposeful aggregation of different elements, different properties, different linkages, different forms and functions.

When we see a Channel suit , for example, we automatically see the difference between it and the patch patch improvised work done by the unskilled hands of grandma or auntie.

If you consider intelligent design - like I said before deity-orchestrated creation - you'll follow the doctrine laid out . This physical world would be transformed before our eternity with Christ - every flaw of the universe , life itself will no longer be there .

If you think flaws of an intelligent design precludes a designer then you are very wrong !

Joshthefirst:
If I wake up in another universe and see a signboard saying Joshua, did you bring your dissertation with you, I would certainly not doubt that intelligence is behind such a conundrum.

Meaningless babble.

Joshthefirst:
.
Specificity, and not just aesthetics in design, are present in our universe.

"raw materials", that have resulted in this universe as we have it have been brought together simultaneously in the most amazing combinations-combinations too amazing to have just happened by accident. That is the argument for design.

-Ravi Zacharias

I have hardly read any quote more about ignorant than this.

Did he say " simultaneously " ?
Seriously ?

I feel very little just trying to address this post.

KingEbukasBlog:


If you consider intelligent design - like I said before deity-orchestrated creation - you'll follow the doctrine laid out . This physical world would be transformed before our eternity with Christ - every flaw of the universe , life itself will no longer be there .

If you think flaws of an intelligent design precludes a designer then you are very wrong !

Oh gosh !!


What kind of mental abuse have I gotten myself into this Sunday afternoon ?

Joshthefirst:
Stop presuming. My point is that as God is eternal, he has higher thoughts than us, as he see's everything in our reality, including all of time

Higher? ? ? God's thought is higher? ? ?? How much higher? Like 3 meters higher than ours?? ? Or is that just another nonsense word?

How high do your thoughts have to be till you'll no longer have cause to feel repentance?

Joshthefirst:
Stop presuming. My point is that as God is eternal, he has higher thoughts than us, as he see's everything in our reality, including all of time

Now, people give different attributes to God, including needing your 10%, predicting and even shaping European league soccer outcomes, bestowing riches, killing your enemies, etc etc.

Are all these attributes correct, or do you think most of the motions of God are simply flawed by human thinking ?

plaetton:


Oh gosh !!


What kind of mental abuse have I gotten myself into this Sunday afternoon ?

When we see a Channel suit , for example, we automatically see the difference between it and the patch patch improvised work done by the unskilled hands of grandma or auntie.

You are suggesting that this physical universe could have not being designed because of the flaws . Right ?

plaetton:


I have hardly read any quote more about ignorant than this.

Did he say " simultaneously " ?
Seriously ?

I feel very little just trying to address this post.

Zacharias has to be the king of Olodo worldwide.

PastorAIO:


Higher? ? ? God's thought is higher? ? ?? How much higher? Like 3 meters higher than ours?? ? Or is that just another nonsense word?

How high do your thoughts have to be till you'll no longer have cause to feel repentance?

Only shallow thinkers resort to mockery because they lack understanding

plaetton:


Meaningless babble.

lol. Sorry for trying to reason with you

KingEbukasBlog:


Only shallow thinkers resort to mockery because they lack understanding

Funny that you should hear mockery. Are you sure that it is not something in you mocking you?

The guy made a statement. And I questioned what he had to say. He used the word 'higher'. In the contexts I know the word's use it didn't make any sense, so I asked for clarification.

You know for a fact that the bible, which is your source for knowledge of God, states that God repented. If you're an honest man, you'll try to answer my questions as best and as truthfully as you can.

plaetton:


Meaningless babble.

How is this meaningless . In summary , its impossible for life to come forth without the aid of an intelligent designer who is beyond the natural . Your unbelief makes you delusional if you believe such did happen on its own - attributing these processes to luck without proof is beyond ...

PastorAIO:


And on the perspective issue there is also the obvious fact that we are constantly imposing form unto our perceptions.

I've just been looking at the Pollack paintings. I wasn't aware of the artist before. Automatically I began to see forms, people in crowds, traffic, bushes and bramble etc…. A wonderful powerful attribute of the human mind that computers cannot (yet) replicate is our ability to make approximations. We can look at a map of england and call the shape a triangle. We can look at nigeria's map and call the shape a square. We can call the map of africa a gun shape.

It's that phenomena of seeing faces in the clouds. Of course there are no faces in the clouds or on the moon, but whatever the actually shape is we can approximate it to a face.

To what extent are the designs that we see in the world merely approximations of what is really there. So we are basically imposing forms and designs onto the world which might not actually be there.


Rorschach Test

Exactly.

So, much of what we take for granted as reality are likely simple mental projections.

Take for example a 1975 Peugeot 404. In the 1975, that car seemed like the most elegantly designed moving machine on the planet. It was impossible to consider that anything could ever be designed better.

Now, with the same eyes, take a look at that same car, and it seem like a relic from dark times.

So, what has changed over years? The car or the mind ?

Certainly not the car, but the mind that appreciates the car.

KingEbukasBlog:




You are suggesting that this physical universe could have not being designed because of the flaws . Right ?

No sir.
The point I am trying to make is that there is no other undesigned universe with which to compare, to prove that ours is designed, in the way that a Channel suit is evidence of design, whereas grandma's patch patch knits do not show such elegance in design.

PastorAIO:


Funny that you should hear mockery. Are you sure that it is not something in you mocking you?

The guy made a statement. And I questioned what he had to say. He used the word 'higher'. In the contexts I know the word's use it didn't make any sense, so I asked for clarification.

You know for a fact that the bible, which is your source for knowledge of God, states that God repented. If you're an honest man, you'll try to answer my questions as best and as truthfully as you can.

The bible also said that God rested on the seventh day . It does not mean he actually rested , he just ceased creating . God repenting meant he felt sorry for creating man - that's to our own understanding . He did allow man to continue exist that's why he preserved Noah during the flood.

God's ways transcends ours but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us through and help us understand . Resorting to mockery is for people bereft of reasoning or too scared or unreceptive of the truth - close-minded in this case

Plaetton is saying that we must compare chaos with design to appreciate design.

When you see an alphabet or a portrait, we must know the counterfeit form of those things to be able to appreciate their design.

I applaud your thinking plaetton.

KingEbukasBlog:


How is this meaningless . In summary , its impossible for life to come forth without the aid of an intelligent designer who is beyond the natural . Your unbelief makes you delusional if you believe such did happen on its own - attributing these processes to luck without proof is beyond ...

@Deepsight.

See what I mean by the irrationality of religious beliefs?

Here is a guy continuously pully out rabbits from his axxs, conjuring up all manner of qualities and duties for his Intelligent designer. But he even goes full reta.Rd by calling anybody Delusional , who doesn't accept his colorful tricks of magic.

Can anything be more irrational than that ?

Joshthefirst:
Plaetton is saying that we must compare chaos with design to appreciate design.

When you see an alphabet or a portrait, we must know the counterfeit form of those things to be able to appreciate their design.

I applaud your thinking plaetton.

We can compare and know the difference between the scribblings of a toddler on paper and the orderly written alphabet.
Same goes with scribblings on canvas and a portrait.

Common sense, Josh, common sense.

plaetton:


@Deepsight.

See what I mean by the irrationality of religious beliefs?

Here is a guy continuously pully out rabbits from his axxs, conjuring up all manner of qualities and duties for his Intelligent designer. But he even goes full reta.Rd by calling anybody Delusional , who doesn't accept his colorful tricks of magic.

Can anything be more irrational than that ?

You are accusing me of your own actions . You are the one who claimed luck is responsible for all we've got . Have you forgotten your lottery analogy .

Its impossible - mathematically and otherwise - yet you are obdurate that life indeed came through luck .

Isn't that irrational

Your unbelief has caused you to accept an impossibility !

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason , emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.

plaetton:


@Deepsight.

See what I mean by the irrationality of religious beliefs?

Here is a guy continuously pully out rabbits from his axxs, conjuring up all manner of qualities and duties for his Intelligent designer. But he even goes full reta.Rd by calling anybody Delusional , who doesn't accept his colorful tricks of magic.

Can anything be more irrational than that ?

I don't really consider it irrational.

plaetton:


We can compare and know the difference between the scribblings of a toddler on paper and the orderly written alphabet.
Same goes with scribblings on canvas and a portrait.

Common sense, Josh, common sense.

Answer this question then: Without the real alphabet, how would you understand that scribbling lacks design?

Common sense would tell you that comparing design and chaos is not and has never been a factor in the certification of design itself.

Design; aesthetic and specified, is self evident to reasonable beings such as ourselves. No comparison needed.

Joshthefirst:
Answer this question then: Without the real alphabet, how would you understand that scribbling lacks design?

Daahhhh!!

Am I not the one who supposed to be asking you this question ?

KingEbukasBlog:


You are accusing me of your own actions . You are the one who claimed luck is responsible for all we've got . Have you forgotten your lottery analogy .

Its impossible - mathematically and otherwise - yet you are obdurate that life indeed came through luck .

Isn't that irrational

Your unbelief has caused you to accept an impossibility !

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason , emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.

serious cognitive deficiency.


A goat is proof that nature can make a goat.

Life is proof, that despite impossible odds, life emerged randomly.

plaetton:


Daahhhh!!

Am I not the one who supposed to be asking you this question ?

I believe you woke up or fell down on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Plaetton,
Your analogy of the suits misses the point as both are still designed.

To reiterate, it is impossible and unreasonable to request an "undesigned" thing to be produced for comparison, where a person asserts that all of reality as we know it is designed.

I understand what you, Kay17 and AIO are saying, however it appears to me that in many aspects of the discussion you all cling to straws or pretend not to understand what your fellow discussants are saying where perhaps they used a wrong or imprecise word or mode of description. I think if you understand what a person is trying to say, there is no point nit-picking on surface issues.

DeepSight:
Plaetton,
Your analogy of the suits misses the point as both are still designed.

To reiterate, it is impossible and unreasonable to request an "undesigned" thing to be produced for comparison, where a person asserts that all of reality as we know it is designed.

I understand what you, Kay17 and AIO are saying, however it appears to me that in many aspects of the discussion you all cling to straws or pretend not to understand what your fellow discussants are saying where perhaps they used a wrong or imprecise word or mode of description. I think if you understand what a person is trying to say, there is no point nit-picking on surface issues.

So there is nothing that is undesigned. Haven't I been here before… hmmm… Oh yes! 'Everything is Natural, everything that exists is Nature, so therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.'

This desperately dumbass way of thinking only tells me that these people use words and concepts that are ill defined. In other words they don't know what they are talking about.

Deepsight, that your last comment that I have highlighted for you is the bane of your reasoning capabilities. You, sir, do too much understanding what someone is trying to say and hardly any understanding of what the person is actually saying. You've done this to me too many times to mention and it makes it hard to discuss with you in a manner that isn't annoying.

A word ought to refer to something with limits, i.e. something that is defined. The only word that refers to everything is 'everything' and even that is contrasted by definition from 'nothing' and 'somethings'. If I ask you what 'everything' means I'm sure you'll have no difficulty explaining it. You will show how it defined in contrast to Nothing and in contrast to 'somethings'.

Design and undesigned too must be definable in contrast to each other and then when we observe an event we can use the definitions to to ascertain whether the event was designed or not.
You don't even have to produced examples of undesigned phenomena. All you need is to make a hypothetical example of an undesigned thing if ever it should exist.

PastorAIO:


So there is nothing that is undesigned. Haven't I been here before… hmmm… Oh yes! 'Everything is Natural, everything that exists is Nature, so therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.'

This desperately dumbass way of thinking only tells me that these people use words and concepts that are ill defined. In other words they don't know what they are talking about.

Deepsight, that your last comment that I have highlighted for you is the bane of your reasoning capabilities. You, sir, do too much understanding what someone is trying to say and hardly any understanding of what the person is actually saying. You've done this to me too many times to mention and it makes it hard to discuss with you in a manner that isn't annoying.

A word ought to refer to something with limits, i.e. something that is defined. The only word that refers to everything is 'everything' and even that is contrasted by definition from 'nothing' and 'somethings'. If I ask you what 'everything' means I'm sure you'll have no difficulty explaining it. You will show how it defined in contrast to Nothing and in contrast to 'somethings'.

Design and undesigned too must be definable in contrast to each other and then when we observe an event we can use the definitions to to ascertain whether the event was designed or not.
You don't even have to produced examples of undesigned phenomena. All you need is to make a hypothetical example of an undesigned thing if ever it should exist.

Sorry I have no clue what this senseless ramble is about.
In the day that you define your perspectives, instead of chasing your tail, we might have a conversation.