A Compromise about ID in Biology Classes - Page 14

NotReady · #**131** 10-08-2005, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Could you remind be again why you believe it's impossible for god not to exist. (Sorry, I could trawl through all the threads but I might not live that long )

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance. One of my presuppositions is that the universe has meaning. If this is true, God must exist. It's not an absolute proof, but if it isn't true, this dialogue has no meaning so it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Actually, in that case there would be no right or wrong.

chezlaw · #**132** 10-08-2005, 09:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier you had a fundemental difficulty with considering the situations in which god did not exists because god is a neccesary being.

Now it appears the reason you think god is necessary is a consequance of you having considered other rational explanations for existance so thoroughly you can rule them out as imposible.

This is inconsistent so I must have misunderstood. Can you clarify what you mean.

chez

David Sklansky · #**133** 10-08-2005, 10:48 AM

"Natural selection, IS tested, HAS BEEN proven, and is proven EVERY SINGLE DAY...natural selection is the reason antibiotics fail to work after a given amount of time. The disease has EVOLVED and the medicine doesn't work. The same laws apply to basically everything."

Even most religious people don't dispute that. The natural selection that doesn't happen every day, and conceivably may never have happened, is the transition from being alive to being conscious. That's all that the Pope and Peter 666 care about.

David Sklansky · #**134** 10-08-2005, 10:58 AM

"For me to say there would be meaning of any kind without God would be to assume the logically impossible.

I think people have meaning (relative) in their lives because God exists, whether they admit it or not, because they have life at all, knowledge at all, something to know at all, because God exists."

But do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the God you speak of who gives meaning to life could at least theoretically be the God of the Old Testament only, who for whatever reason didn't yet go to great lengths to show the world that the New Testament was a fraud?

Put another way, could an orthodox Jew make the same statement of yours that I quoted above, without being silly in your mind?

RJT · #**135** 10-08-2005, 11:00 AM

Are you my dear wife? You sound just like she does sometimes? You say somthing like this:

[ QUOTE ]
umm...Creationism, in my opinion, has to be a joke. Anyone beliving in it, obviously doesn't think for themselves and only repeats what theyve been told by others, which is fine because they dont know any better. Im not patronizing either, it really is okay its not their fault...

[/ QUOTE ]

But, then you show you do have a brain after all and say something like this.

[ QUOTE ]
The only remaining question is what started the very first organism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and btw, I hope I don't sound partronizing either.

#**136** 10-08-2005, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style....

[/ QUOTE ]

This is historically the biggest stumbling block to understanding Nietzsche. You're in good company.

[ QUOTE ]

I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some prefer to think of him as the last metaphysician. Neitzsche is an atheist only in the Platonic-Christian sense; moving beyond this the atheist tag doesn't fit.

[ QUOTE ]

He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion...

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but it's Nietzsche's position that nihilism is not a desirable or necessary conclusion.

NotReady · #**137** 10-08-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the God you speak of who gives meaning to life could at least theoretically be the God of the Old Testament only

[/ QUOTE ]

With respect to the logical argument only, yes. Since the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, both give meaning to life.

Dominic · #**138** 10-08-2005, 07:46 PM

Paul Phillips posted this link on his blog about ID I think it says all there needs to be said about teaching ID in the classroom:

why ID people are idiots

ethan · #**139** 10-09-2005, 06:44 AM

I don't read this forum all this often, but when I do I'm glad you keep posting. Otherwise, all I have is the answer to the question "what is the sound of one man arguing?" which is not entirely exciting. As far as the whole ID debate goes - it seems clear that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. At least, that should be clear to any scientist. I've no problem with it being taught in philosophy/religion classes, and in fact I've studied it in such. It's fairly easy to argue that ID doesn't come anywhere near following the scientific method, and thus that no sensible observer should argue it be taught as science. I like to think of it as the last refuge of the bible-thumping scoundrel.

Essentially, ID's saying "Wow this is so complicated, I don't get it, so God did it!"

That's not science. And that, unlike the origin of species, is simple. People should be free to present ID as a philosophy, or as a belief. Just not as science, and that's really all I care about in this debate. There's enough bad science going on without this entering the mix.

NotReady · #**140** 10-10-2005, 03:18 AM

You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Now it appears the reason you think god is necessary is a consequance of you having considered other rational explanations for existance

[/ QUOTE ]

I said:

[ QUOTE ]

There's no rational explanation for anything unless God exists. If He doesn't the universe and everything else is ultimately irrational. I can't prove it isn't, but I like to think the sentences I write have real meaning and aren't just the product of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

My basic position is that God is necessary if the universe is to have meaning. It's almost tautological to say the universe is meaningless if chance is ultimate. Chance is irrational, not based on reason. Irrational means lacking reason or sound argument. They aren't synonymous, but almost.