|
|
[

at1with0 wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:Unintelligent design...
Are you calling my momma unintelligent??
If I were unintelligent, I would think you are. Luckily for me, I am not completely devoid of intelligence. I can let sarcasm and a quick wit slide, unlike the majority of people in this thread. Heck, it's even amusing!![]()
My money is on ID but the form of intelligence involved is not comparable to human or any known intelligence. There is the complication that the design IS the designer, like literally and stuff. A work of art implies an artist, and all that stuff, but in this case the artist is also a work of art (imaginably so at least), so there is a non-well-founded aspect to the "design". It's more complex than ID or not-ID.
DIss0n80r wrote:Just out of curiousity, where does this fit into what you wrote on the previous page?at1with0 wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:Unintelligent design...
Are you calling my momma unintelligent??
If I were unintelligent, I would think you are. Luckily for me, I am not completely devoid of intelligence. I can let sarcasm and a quick wit slide, unlike the majority of people in this thread. Heck, it's even amusing!![]()
My money is on ID but the form of intelligence involved is not comparable to human or any known intelligence. There is the complication that the design IS the designer, like literally and stuff. A work of art implies an artist, and all that stuff, but in this case the artist is also a work of art (imaginably so at least), so there is a non-well-founded aspect to the "design". It's more complex than ID or not-ID.

at1with0 wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:We could all be slinging our feces at each other and squawking for all the objective universe cares.
*farts
*oops that wasn't a far* (Hershey's)
*SQWUAK SQUAKE SQUAWK
DIss0n80r wrote:at1with0 wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:We could all be slinging our feces at each other and squawking for all the objective universe cares.
*farts
*oops that wasn't a far* (Hershey's)
*SQWUAK SQUAKE SQUAWK

at1with0 wrote:I am a proponent of the intelligence of certain mathematical structures.
DIss0n80r wrote:at1with0 wrote:I am a proponent of the intelligence of certain mathematical structures.
Intriguing...
What exactly do you mean by intelligent math structures? Do you believe that intelligence is a fundamental aspect of reality, in the sense that those structures are innately intelligent "parts" of reality, or perhaps that intelligence can arise in those structures? Or am I misunderstanding completely?

at1with0 wrote:What if the objective universe and truth were hell?
DIss0n80r wrote:greeney2 wrote:People badmouth the results of science all the time, not science itself. Only a very few religions shun the use of modern science that I can think of, only Amish people come to mind. People badmouth the inventions of science everyday, that caused or created bigger problems, or at least the negative aspects of any given invention, affecting our society. We seem to have grouped almost every invention of man, or discovery of man, as a science ralated thing for this discussion. Nobody said to eliminate science, and nobody said to eliminate our modern things like Computers.
Shouldn't you be complaining about businesses that make the tech you have a problem with? Do scientists tell them what to manufacture?
It still doesn't matter, though, does it? Again I ask: What's the point in saying technology isn't always harmless? We all KNOW that. What do you propose be done about it?
Return to Religion & Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests