|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 5:16:18 GMT
Although I do not use the term "deliberate supernatural" I do recognize that anything not found in the natural world is by definition "supernatural." That does not imply any list of characteristics other than not being found in nature. I also agree that the designer of the first life had a choice not to design it. I tried to explain to you that various people have various notions of a god. Which they mean in which contexts can also vary. Because you are ever oblivious of context this is a source of great confusion for you. The "code of ethics" is the thing that draws many people to religious services. They show up to participate in the development of that code of ethics without giving much thought to the other characteristics of whatever it is at the center of their organization. Most people who are not severely retarded understand that the process can involve rather abstract notions of personality and identity. That is a problem for you since you are totally incapable abstract thought. The intelligent designer is an entirely separate notion of a "god" from all that. It is not part of any religion. It is a scientific conclusion. What connection there might be between the intelligent designer and the reason people attend religious services is a matter of conjecture. For example it might follow that people who accept a power beyond their control are more careful and "moral" than people who do not. Still though, how that "coheres" is a matter of conjecture. You have an unrealistic notion of "logic." You have unrealistic expectations of what "logic" can accomplish. There are things that logic is useless to address. You are mentally incapable of recognizing the limitations of logic and the importance of other means of knowledge and choices. It is that "logic" that anything infinite is beyond and can defy. That you consider anything above logic a failure or a problem is just how your diseased brain thinks. If the intelligent designer part of god is a scientific conclusion, you will have no trouble showing us the 'scientific evidence ' for this claim. Indeed I have remarkable success showing people the science. It's not that difficult. Most people who still depend on it suspected for a long time now that their story of "random" assembly is rather short of the mark and unconvincing. They just refused to admit it. All I had to do was call their bluff. I called "time" on their ridiculous excuse that it was necessary to wait millions of years for construction to begin. That of course is the real world. Here on this board are people like you who do not seem to be aware the game is over. Most people now do not depend on such a ridiculous story, especially those who make good grades in biology and chemistry. As time went on, fewer and fewer people subscribed to the silly notion of random assembly. The only ones left for many years now are very "slow" in the learning department. They are also militaristic and especially averse to any idea that complicates their dictatorial endeavors. They are not capable of reading beyond a rudimentary level and not skilled at more sophisticated means of persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 1, 2020 7:34:39 GMT
If the intelligent designer part of god is a scientific conclusion, you will have no trouble showing us the 'scientific evidence ' for this claim. Indeed I have remarkable success showing people the science. It's not that difficult. Most people who still depend on it suspected for a long time now that their story of "random" assembly is rather short of the mark and unconvincing. They just refused to admit it. All I had to do was call their bluff. I called "time" on their ridiculous excuse that it was necessary to wait millions of years for construction to begin. That of course is the real world. Here on this board are people like you who do not seem to be aware the game is over. Most people now do not depend on such a ridiculous story, especially those who make good grades in biology and chemistry. As time went on, fewer and fewer people subscribed to the silly notion of random assembly. The only ones left for many years now are very "slow" in the learning department. They are also militaristic and especially averse to any idea that complicates their dictatorial endeavors. They are not capable of reading beyond a rudimentary level and not skilled at more sophisticated means of persuasion. ..then show us.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 17:43:12 GMT
We know that Arlon believes in a deliberate supernatural since he has told us that it is not possible that things could have been created initially through natural causes and that everything is designed. We also know that he thinks it is the source of a preferred morality as he has likened God to a code of ethics. That it is also inhuman and impersonal at the same time and those who think otherwise are not religiously literate. But all this notwithstanding God is also something vague and and an essence of nature, he says. We also remember that anything supernatural and eternal he considers "offending logic, measure and order". How all this coheres is any one's guess. Although I do not use the term "deliberate supernatural" I do recognize that anything not found in the natural world is by definition "supernatural." That does not imply any list of characteristics other than not being found in nature. I also agree that the designer of the first life had a choice not to design it. I tried to explain to you that various people have various notions of a god. Which they mean in which contexts can also vary. Because you are ever oblivious of context this is a source of great confusion for you. The "code of ethics" is the thing that draws many people to religious services. They show up to participate in the development of that code of ethics without giving much thought to the other characteristics of whatever it is at the center of their organization. Most people who are not severely retarded understand that the process can involve rather abstract notions of personality and identity. That is a problem for you since you are totally incapable abstract thought. The intelligent designer is an entirely separate notion of a "god" from all that. It is not part of any religion. It is a scientific conclusion. What connection there might be between the intelligent designer and the reason people attend religious services is a matter of conjecture. For example it might follow that people who accept a power beyond their control are more careful and "moral" than people who do not. Still though, how that "coheres" is a matter of conjecture. You have an unrealistic notion of "logic." You have unrealistic expectations of what "logic" can accomplish. There are things that logic is useless to address. You are mentally incapable of recognizing the limitations of logic and the importance of other means of knowledge and choices. It is that "logic" that anything infinite is beyond and can defy. That you consider anything above logic a failure or a problem is just how your diseased brain thinks. Thank you for not disagreeing with what I specifically said and I am sure that various religions will be interested to learn that the notion of an intelligent designer is not part of their belief system. Ad hominems noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 17:44:55 GMT
Indeed I have remarkable success showing people the science. It's not that difficult. Most people who still depend on it suspected for a long time now that their story of "random" assembly is rather short of the mark and unconvincing. They just refused to admit it. All I had to do was call their bluff. I called "time" on their ridiculous excuse that it was necessary to wait millions of years for construction to begin. That of course is the real world. Here on this board are people like you who do not seem to be aware the game is over. Most people now do not depend on such a ridiculous story, especially those who make good grades in biology and chemistry. As time went on, fewer and fewer people subscribed to the silly notion of random assembly. The only ones left for many years now are very "slow" in the learning department. They are also militaristic and especially averse to any idea that complicates their dictatorial endeavors. They are not capable of reading beyond a rudimentary level and not skilled at more sophisticated means of persuasion. ..then show us. All he can show us is the usual God of the Gaps argument and the calling of those who disagree with him stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 21:38:58 GMT
Although I do not use the term "deliberate supernatural" I do recognize that anything not found in the natural world is by definition "supernatural." That does not imply any list of characteristics other than not being found in nature. I also agree that the designer of the first life had a choice not to design it. I tried to explain to you that various people have various notions of a god. Which they mean in which contexts can also vary. Because you are ever oblivious of context this is a source of great confusion for you. The "code of ethics" is the thing that draws many people to religious services. They show up to participate in the development of that code of ethics without giving much thought to the other characteristics of whatever it is at the center of their organization. Most people who are not severely retarded understand that the process can involve rather abstract notions of personality and identity. That is a problem for you since you are totally incapable abstract thought. The intelligent designer is an entirely separate notion of a "god" from all that. It is not part of any religion. It is a scientific conclusion. What connection there might be between the intelligent designer and the reason people attend religious services is a matter of conjecture. For example it might follow that people who accept a power beyond their control are more careful and "moral" than people who do not. Still though, how that "coheres" is a matter of conjecture. You have an unrealistic notion of "logic." You have unrealistic expectations of what "logic" can accomplish. There are things that logic is useless to address. You are mentally incapable of recognizing the limitations of logic and the importance of other means of knowledge and choices. It is that "logic" that anything infinite is beyond and can defy. That you consider anything above logic a failure or a problem is just how your diseased brain thinks. Thank you for not disagreeing with what I specifically said and I am sure that various religions will be interested to learn that the notion of an intelligent designer is not part of their belief system. Ad hominems noted. I never met anyone so determined to misunderstand things as you are. Why? I suspect there is some story here not being told.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 21:41:03 GMT
Indeed I have remarkable success showing people the science. It's not that difficult. Most people who still depend on it suspected for a long time now that their story of "random" assembly is rather short of the mark and unconvincing. They just refused to admit it. All I had to do was call their bluff. I called "time" on their ridiculous excuse that it was necessary to wait millions of years for construction to begin. That of course is the real world. Here on this board are people like you who do not seem to be aware the game is over. Most people now do not depend on such a ridiculous story, especially those who make good grades in biology and chemistry. As time went on, fewer and fewer people subscribed to the silly notion of random assembly. The only ones left for many years now are very "slow" in the learning department. They are also militaristic and especially averse to any idea that complicates their dictatorial endeavors. They are not capable of reading beyond a rudimentary level and not skilled at more sophisticated means of persuasion. ..then show us. The Town Voice
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 1, 2020 22:01:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 22:29:31 GMT
Thank you for not disagreeing with what I specifically said and I am sure that various religions will be interested to learn that the notion of an intelligent designer is not part of their belief system. Ad hominems noted. I never met anyone so determined to misunderstand things as you are. Why? I suspect there is some story here not being told. As already noted, you didn't dispute the specifics of what I said, agreed with it or merely waffled around it. And you just told us that "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion " which is easy to understand, did you not?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 22:35:08 GMT
This is not the first time Arlon has offered himself as an authority for himself. Who made him that?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 22:46:19 GMT
I never met anyone so determined to misunderstand things as you are. Why? I suspect there is some story here not being told. As already noted, you didn't dispute the specifics of what I said, merely waffled around it. And you just told us that "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion " which is easy to understand, did you not? When you conflate the intelligent designer with most people's concept of religion you tend to argue against straw men. Those are separate topics. You also tend to argue against straw men anyway because you think the necessity to agree on definitions means the necessity to follow you and your attempts at conflation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 22:49:00 GMT
It is not enough to just "cite" Dunning Kruger. Someone has to provide details of the confusion in order to unravel it. So far you have "because most people think so." That could turn on you as more people change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 22:50:19 GMT
As already noted, you didn't dispute the specifics of what I said, merely waffled around it. And you just told us that "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion " which is easy to understand, did you not? When you conflate the intelligent designer with most people's concept of religion you tend to argue against straw men. Those are separate topics. You also tend to argue against straw men anyway because you think the necessity to agree on definitions means the necessity to follow you and your attempts at conflation. But it was you who said "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion "helpfully joining the two topics, was it not?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 22:51:14 GMT
This is not the first time Arlon has offered himself as an authority for himself. Who made him that? I still have no challengers in real life. So who made IMDB an authority?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 22:55:44 GMT
This is not the first time Arlon has offered himself as an authority for himself. Who made him that? I still have no challengers in real life. So who made IMDB an authority? Is IMDB offering an opinion here? You certainly lack equal on this board. I can't speak for for you in real life, although I am sure few have had your experience in Parks and Recreation, essential to being an authority on things scientific and religious as well as health care issues, one imagines?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 22:59:33 GMT
When you conflate the intelligent designer with most people's concept of religion you tend to argue against straw men. Those are separate topics. You also tend to argue against straw men anyway because you think the necessity to agree on definitions means the necessity to follow you and your attempts at conflation. But it was you who said "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion " was it not? I suppose a "religion" might be made around solar flares, but no there isn't one so far. I do not believe there are many people as muddle brained as you are, but there might be a few who come close.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 23:03:03 GMT
But it was you who said "The intelligent designer ... is not part of any religion " was it not? I suppose a "religion" might be made around solar flares, but no there isn't one so far. I do not believe there are many people as muddle brained as you are, but there might be a few who come close. Evasion and non sequitur noted. Can anyone else here think of an adherent, say of Islam or Christianity, who would not consider an Intelligent Designer part of their religion?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 23:04:25 GMT
I still have no challengers in real life. So who made IMDB an authority? Is IMDB offering an opinion here? You certainly lack equal on this board. I can't speak for for you in real life, although I am sure few have had your experience in Parks and Recreation, essential to being an authority on things scientific and religious as well as health care issues, one imagines? ^^ Phantom of the Sloppera ^^
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 1, 2020 23:07:00 GMT
Is IMDB offering an opinion here? You certainly lack equal on this board. I can't speak for for you in real life, although I am sure few have had your experience in Parks and Recreation, essential to being an authority on things scientific and religious as well as health care issues, one imagines? ^^ Phantom of the Sloppera ^^ Well I think that you are done with now. Until next time..
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 1, 2020 23:16:47 GMT
^^ Phantom of the Sloppera ^^ Well I think that you are done with now. Until next time.. One can hope.
|
|