A complex case against intelligent design

[ecco]

Quote manips are so 2005.

Had you quoted (and comprehended) my entire statement, you would see that...



Omnipotence and omniscience are givens in this context; what doesn't make much sense is to believe in an omnipotent and omniscient god who is also omnimalevolent, as opposed to an omnipotent and omniscient God Who is also omnibenevolent.

Yes, I did misread your original post.

Now I understand that you believe God is...
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent

Then please explain why He set A&E up to intentionally fail and then blame them for failing.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, I did misread your original post.

Now I understand that you believe God is...
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent

Then please explain why He set A&E up to intentionally fail and then blame them for failing.

Your question implies the faulty assumption that A&E were real people.

If you want me to explain why God would inspire someone to write the Garden of Eden parable, that I can do.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I did misread your original post.

Now I understand that you believe God is...
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent

Then please explain why He set A&E up to intentionally fail and then blame them for failing.

Yes, I thought the same way, since (2003) I looked at Genesis Creation and Flood in more depth, looked beyond the superficial Christian interpretations.

If God seriously didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from that Tree, knowing they would fail, god could have not planted the Tree of Knowledge at all, or planted it on the other side of the Earth, or place an angel with the flaming sword as guard.

But Genesis creation is a myth, intended to describe (not explain) why death and suffering occur, so Eden was merely like an allegory or parable, not history.

 

[ecco]

Your question implies the faulty assumption that A&E were real people.

No, it doesn't. It implies that I know that some people believe A&E were real people who were created by a real god. Personally, I don't hold either of those beliefs.

If you want me to explain why God would inspire someone to write the Garden of Eden parable, that I can do.

Sure. And while you're at it explain why you believe it and why you believe it is "more real" than the beliefs that other people have.

 

[ecco]

But Genesis creation is a myth.

Yes. But there are people who believe the myth. Those are the people who must address the question of why God set up A&E to fail and then blame them for their failure.

 

[Axe Elf]

No, it doesn't. It implies that I know that some people believe A&E were real people who were created by a real god. Personally, I don't hold either of those beliefs.

I didn't say that YOU believe it, I said that your question implies that A&E were real people--and it does. For me to explain why God did something to someone and then blamed them for it, we would have to assume that the someone was real, or God couldn't have axually done something to them, let alone blame them for it afterwards.

Sure.

Somehow, I get the idea that you're not really interested, so I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. God inspired someone to write the Garden of Eden parable to show how man is fundamentally separated from God by his human nature of selfishness. It sets the stage with the basic problem that the rest of the book sets out to resolve.

And while you're at it explain why you believe it and why you believe it is "more real" than the beliefs that other people have.

I believe it because it tends to corroborate what I have learned about the separation between God's nature (love) and human nature (selfishness, as selfishness is the opposite of love), and it dovetails with the reason why Jesus was needed to bridge that gap to allow us to enter into the presence of God again.

I believe it is more reasonable to understand the parable of the Garden of Eden in that way than to believe that it tells a literal story of two real people because of what we know about the history of the Earth and the anthropological development of the human race.

 

[ecco]

I believe it because it tends to corroborate what I have learned about the separation between God's nature (love) and human nature (selfishness, as selfishness is the opposite of love), and it dovetails with the reason why Jesus was needed to bridge that gap to allow us to enter into the presence of God again.

I believe it is more reasonable to understand the parable of the Garden of Eden in that way than to believe that it tells a literal story of two real people because of what we know about the history of the Earth and the anthropological development of the human race.

More realistic is that the entire Genesis story, like all Creation stories, is based on tales told by man trying to understand nature and trying to provide a basis to instill morality.

There is no need for anyone, in the 21st Century, to invoke any "god".

 

[tas8831]

What's not hard to miss is that the Bible is so full of so much nonsense, that pretty much anyone can find something to support their personal agendas.

It's pretty clear why hypocrisy is not banned in the Bible.

Not to get too far off-topic, but this is totally true -

Just saw on Facebook yesterday that someone had quoted scripture to support Trump's desire to build a wall at the Mexican border. Right there it was, a proud tale of a follower of Jehovah told to build a wall around his town and prosper (2 Chronicles 14). Of course, it also went on the tell of this person's savagery and how he pillaged neighboring towns, so Christ-like...


So much for the whole 'love thy neighbor' and welcome the sojourner and all that ....

 

[tas8831]

How can I teach logical principles to people for whom logic doesn't make sense?

.
Could it be that what you think is logical, isn't?

It's possible, but the evidence would suggest that it's highly unlikely.

By "evidence," I mean the fact that I have consistently tested in the 94th to 99th percentile range on every standardized measure of intelligence and scholastic aptitude I have taken in my life

Not sure how that is a measure of being logical.

--the ASVAB, the SAT, the GRE, the Stanford-Binet, the Weschler, etc.-

Odd that someone would take all of those. Why take the GRE for an undergrad degree? Did you serve? I scored in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB and ended up being a paratrooper because they were offering signing bonuses for combat arms enlistees. Guess my high score didn't mean much.

-and in the two years that my class was tested by subject, I placed among the top 3 individuals in the State of Kansas in Math, Science and Spelling for both years.

You said Kansas?

Further, in addition to my Psychology major in college, I also minored in Philosophy, receiving straight As for every course I took in that discipline, including a course on formal logic. All of which points to the conclusion that my skills in rational thought, processing information, and formal reasoning are in close alignment to the established standards of excellence in those disciplines.

Pity that such a high flyer opted for such a minor. You could have been a top notch scientist or something relevant. At my university, a minor requires 6 classes. So, wow... OK.

Of course, what happens when you engage OUTSIDE of those disciplines?

I know that many often believe that they have some sort of special insights into subjects other than their own.
Creationist lawyer Phil Johnson stated as much in this book "Darwin on Trial." See, he claimed that because he was NOT a scientist, but a lawyer, he had 'special insights' into evolution, and as a lawyer he could examine the ;'arguments' for evolution and amazingly, he picked them all apart and found flaws and proved that evolution would lose in court!

Of course, his special lawyer insights did not help him to portray the evidence for evolution in an accurate manner, leading him to misinterpret and misrepresent many bits of information, thus his arguments were not sound. But that didn't stop him and his acolytes from declaring victory - you see, his 'arguments' all seemed logical to them.

In short, I'm right an awful lot of the time.

In your disciplines, perhaps.

Still, even given the unlikelihood of it, there's always the possibility that I could be wrong.

Pity that you were never tested on your humility.

Therefore I do enjoy a rational dialogue and the evaluation of legitimate objections to my positions. What I don't enjoy is having the same objections regurgitated ad infinitum even after they have been evaluated and shown to be lacking--or being challenged to respond to objections that aren't relevant to the point I'm making.

Evaluated... by you... and shown to be lacking... by you... in disciplines outside of those you actually took classes on while earning your BA.

OK.

For instance, in this thread, I've made the point that "If the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes."

So an if-then argument in theology, not psychology or philosophy.

A lot of the objections to this are along the lines of, "But you can't prove that God exists!" or "That's not evidence for the existence of God!" Of course I can't and of course it's not; I would never suggest such a thing, nor would I attempt to prove that God exists. What I can prove is that "If the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes."

Then what you have shown is not that you are correct, but that you are good at mental masturbation.

And yet people still scream that I haven't conclusively established the existence of God, as if that somehow nullifies my claim. After a while, what am I supposed to do?

Admit that it is all a fantasy, nothing more, and move on?

One could demonstrate logically that "If the omni-Space Unicorn exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes."

What of it?

Look, I get it. You were the smart kid in your Kansas high school, and you got As in your philosophy classes as an undergrad, and now you think that with such mental firepower at your side, you can make an iron-clad if-then argument about your fantasy-derived deity.

Again, what of it?

Is this supposed to be impressive? Is this supposed to make everyone bow at your hyperintellect and adopt your beliefs?


I hate to tell you, hate to burst your balloon that I'm sure your circle of friends and relatives took turns blowing up for you, but science-minded people are not going to be impressed by fancy syllogisms and rhetoric. You have to show proof of purchase.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not sure how that is a measure of being logical.

I’ll run away sobbing from all of these scathing personal attacks in a moment, but since you don’t care to axually address the topic at hand, let me first inform you on matters where you expressed legitimate confusion.

Odd that someone would take all of those.

Maybe, but I didn’t have any basis for objection as a high school student; I just took the tests that our school counselor put in front of me.

Why take the GRE for an undergrad degree?

Indeed. I took mine to get into graduate school.

Did you serve?

I have served various people at various times for various reasons, but I was never in the military, if that’s what you’re axing.

I scored in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB and ended up being a paratrooper because they were offering signing bonuses for combat arms enlistees. Guess my high score didn't mean much.

Sure it did. It meant exactly what my high score meant--that we were in the top 1% of people who took the test on that day. It means that if we were to pack AT&T stadium with a random selection of people, about 1,000 of the people in the stands would have scored as well as we did.

You said Kansas?

Did I stutter?

Pity that such a high flyer opted for such a minor. You could have been a top notch scientist or something relevant.

Instead I spent 25+ years doing something irrelevant--treating abused, neglected, runaway and delinquent children and their families, and I currently help formulate legislation that advocates for individuals living with mental illness. Everyone mourn for my wasted life.

At my university, a minor requires 6 classes. So, wow... OK.

I ended up with a few more than that because I enjoyed them so much, but even 6 is probably a half-dozen more than 95% of the armchair philosophers on this site. How many did you take--you know, between jumping out of planes and stuff?

Evaluated... by you... and shown to be lacking... by you... in disciplines outside of those you actually took classes on while earning your BA.

If you had said B.S., you would have not only been more accurate (I received my Bachelor of Science degree prior to my Master of Science degree), but I’m sure you could have come up with a funnier joke about my education.

Anyway, we just established that the disciplines I am addressing are those in which I excelled during my school years, including specifically logic. Pay attention.

So an if-then argument in theology, not psychology or philosophy.

Theology is a subset of philosophy. My, what DO they teach in these paratrooper schools?

Then what you have shown is not that you are correct, but that you are good at mental masturbation.

You’re not swallowing any of this, are you…?

One could demonstrate logically that "If the omni-Space Unicorn exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes."

Isn’t that what I just did?

What of it?

Well, it’s a comforting thought, isn’t it--to know without a shadow of a doubt that if we are right about the existence of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent Space Unicorn that we live in the best of all possible universes?

Look, I get it. You were the smart kid in your Kansas high school, and you got As in your philosophy classes as an undergrad, and now you think that with such mental firepower at your side, you can make an iron-clad if-then argument about your fantasy-derived deity.

If you get it, why are you wasting so much time acting as if you don’t? Does it bother you that I can make an iron-clad if-then argument about the omni-Space Unicorn?

Again, what of it?

Again, same answer. If it comforts you to KNOW that you live in the best of all possible universes if the omni-Space Unicorn exists--then you’re welcome. If you don’t believe in the omni-Space Unicorn, then all you can say is that you don’t know if you live in the best of all possible universes or not.

Is this supposed to be impressive? Is this supposed to make everyone bow at your hyperintellect and adopt your beliefs?

Well, those things would be fringe benefits, to be sure, but I just told you what the purpose of the argument is. Please don’t make me explain it to you again.

I hate to tell you, hate to burst your balloon that I'm sure your circle of friends and relatives took turns blowing up for you, but science-minded people are not going to be impressed by fancy syllogisms and rhetoric.

Ok, this is the point where I was going to follow through on my promise to run away sobbing, but then I realized, hey wait, that’s EXACTLY what science-minded people are impressed by--evidence and reason!

But ok, if it makes you happy…

::: runs away sobbing :::

 

[ecco]

I just read both sides of post #310. Whatta lotta waste of bandwidth.

 

[Axe Elf]

I just read both sides of post #310. Whatta lotta waste of bandwidth.

Right? It would be so much more efficient if people would just stop objecting to my posts with nonsense.

 

[ecco]

Right? It would be so much more efficient if people would just stop objecting to my posts with nonsense.

That is axually true.

 

[tas8831]

Right? It would be so much more efficient if people would just stop objecting to my posts with nonsense.

You could avoid all that by not posting nonsense in the first place and bowing down to the UberCorn.