Natural Processes Cannot Account for the Origin of Nature
Anti-IDists appear to be living in denial.
They don't seem to understand the basic and simple fact that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.
That means that there position requires something beyond nature.
This is important because they try to discredit ID by incorrectly saying that ID requires the supernatural. They say that because ID requires something beyond nature to design nature. That makes sense. However not everything beyond nature, or before it, has to be supernatural. As I said before the designer, at best, could be labeled pre-natural.
What doesn't make any sense is that there position regresses to the same point yet they do not apply their criteria evenly.
IOW the anti-ID mob is a dishonest lot, which I have known for many, many years.
They don't seem to understand the basic and simple fact that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins.
That means that there position requires something beyond nature.
This is important because they try to discredit ID by incorrectly saying that ID requires the supernatural. They say that because ID requires something beyond nature to design nature. That makes sense. However not everything beyond nature, or before it, has to be supernatural. As I said before the designer, at best, could be labeled pre-natural.
What doesn't make any sense is that there position regresses to the same point yet they do not apply their criteria evenly.
IOW the anti-ID mob is a dishonest lot, which I have known for many, many years.
posted by Joe G @ 8:41 AM
21 Comments:
At 10:01 AM,
blipey said…
Why can't you say "God"? Is God telling you not to mention his name or ye might be smoted? Come on, Joe. You know you want to say it--just say His name.
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik admits his position needs "God".
Thank you Erik.
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
That said ID does not require a belief in "God".
At 12:25 PM,
blipey said…
So what thing outside of nature do you need to invoke?
At 12:25 PM,
blipey said…
And more importantly, how would you go about investigating it?
At 1:52 PM,
Joe G said…
That is what I am asking you Erik:
What thing outside the universe do you need to invoke?
If we follow the flow of the discussion it appears that you think your position requires "God" because you are upset that I didn't just come right out and say it.
So you must be one of those people who say "Goddidit but we cannot possibly understand it so don't even try".
But anyway I do not know what thing or things I need to invoke.
My focus is on the design.
I will leave the designer(s) to philosophers, theologians and theoreticists.
But anyway- how did we learn about the things which allegedly built Stonehenge?
Not by investigating them, but by investigating what they left behind.
That is the whole point- when agencies interact with nature they usually leave traces behind.
And in the absence of direct observation or agency input we can only find out about those agencies by what they left behind.
My personal position is it doesn't have to be "God". It could be "God" but if it is I hope it isn't the "God" of the Bible.
Science doesn't care about anything but the reality behind the existence to what we are investigating. Anything else is bullshit.
At 2:14 PM,
blipey said…
You keep saying that knowing the designer is unnecessary. However, this would require a detailed process of examination that you have never revealed to the world.
An EXAMPLE of design determination would seem to be in order. Otherwise, we will need to know the designer.
which is it?
Do we need to know the designer thereby rendering the investigation of the object in question moot?
Or
Do we need to see an exacting step-by-step process used to pinpoint design?
At 3:40 PM,
Joe G said…
You keep saying that knowing the designer is unnecessary.-
That is a fact.
Ya see if we knew the designer(s) then we wouldn't have a design inference, design would be a given.
And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.
You appear to be too stupid to even understand that.
However, this would require a detailed process of examination that you have never revealed to the world.-
Your refusal or incapability of understanding does not mean the process has not been revealed.
IOW once again you think your lies and ignorance are meaningful discourse.
Why is that?
An EXAMPLE of design determination would seem to be in order.-
Examples have been provided. Methodology has been presented.
Again your continued ignorance doesn't mean anything to me.
However you have never provided an example to support your position.
That tells me that examples are meaningless.
You can't supply a testable hypothesis for your position. That tells me that testable hypotheses are meaningless.
You can't supply any methodology for your position besides the refusal to accept the design inference.
At 3:43 PM,
Joe G said…
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question.
The EF mandates a rigorous investigation be conducted in an attempt to figure out how the object/ structure/ event in question came to be (see Science Asks Three Basic Questions, question 3).
So who would use such a process? Mainly anyone and everyone attempting to debunk a design inference. This would also apply to anyone checking/ verifying a design inference.
As I said in another opening post, Ghost Hunters use the EF.
The EF is just a standard operating procedure used when conducting an investigation in which the cause is in doubt or needs to be verified.
At 10:01 AM,
blipey said…
And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used is by studying [b]the design in question[/b]
That's an interesting paragraph by you, Joe.
It seems that you've already assumed design. Why is that? Isn't the point to be able to determine IF design is present?
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
When I say:
And in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question.-
It means that design has already been determined.
IOW clownie once again you prove to be a dumbass.
As I said your ignorance doesn't mean anything to me.
At 10:24 AM,
blipey said…
Right. How'd we determine that again? Maybe you could give us an EXAMPLE. Take us through the work you would do in the field.
At 10:44 AM,
Joe G said…
1- By not providing an example that supports your position you have proven that examples are meaningless.
2- By not providing any criteria that could be used to test your position you have proven that methodology is useless.
3- And your failure to provide a testable hypothesis for your position proves that science no longer cares about such a thing.
IOW you and your ilk have completely bastardized science.
So why do you hold ID to a different standard than your position?
At 11:00 AM,
blipey said…
What processes account for the nature, Joe? How do you propose to use the natural world to look at the supernatural world?
At 2:00 PM,
Joe G said…
What processes account for the nature, Joe?-
Huh? "the nature" of what?
Be clear and specific.
How do you propose to use the natural world to look at the supernatural world?-
How is that relevant?
Be clear and specific.
At 5:43 PM,
blipey said…
Well, you say Stonehenge is designed. We see the signs of man in it, so it's designed.
You say nature is designed. What signs do you see that tell you it's designed. You must invoke something else. That means you must know that something else exists. How do you know that?
At 7:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, you say Stonehenge is designed. We see the signs of man in it, so it's designed.-
I say Stonehenge is designed because we observe signs of counterflow.
Only after that design determination was made and further investigation conducted, did we infer it was humans that BUILT it.
You say nature is designed. What signs do you see that tell you it's designed.-
The laws that govern it and all the other data presented in "The Privileged Planet".
You must invoke something else.-
You must invoke something else.
That means you must know that something else exists.-
At least existed. The designer(s) need not still exist.
How do you know that?-
They left traces behind- just like beavers do.
And then once we consider the options sheer dumb luck just doesn't measure up.
At 12:56 AM,
blipey said…
No, no, no, Joe. We don't look for traces that were left behind. We look for things that can't be accounted for, right? Counterflow. So, without looking at things that were left behind, how do you know that the designers existed?
At 7:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Erik,
Those traces left behind are counterflow you stupid fuck.
At 3:14 PM,
blipey said…
So, you need to know that something left them behind? If there was nothing to leave a trace, there would be no counterflow. Yet counterflow is supposed to tell us that something left traces. But we need to know that something existed or there's no counterflow. But counterflow requires us to know that something left them behind.
Truly stunning work there.
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
So, you need to know that something left them behind?-
The traces tell us something left them behind.
If there was nothing to leave a trace, there would be no counterflow.-
True.
Yet counterflow is supposed to tell us that something left traces.-
Or you couyld just step up and refute the design inference by actually substantiating your PoV.
But we need to know that something existed or there's no counterflow.-
That is false.
Your twisted mind is really fucked up.
We know something existed because there is counterflow.
And if someone comes along and demonstrates what we thought was counterflow can be accounted for via nature, operating freely, then that design inference is falsified.
But counterflow requires us to know that something left them behind.-
Are you proud to be really stupid?
Do you think your stupidity is meaningful discourse?
Post a Comment
<< Home