Exactly.

When I use the term anthropomorphism, I'm thinking in terms of our spiritual essence, not our physical form.

I guess, when conversing with people who are locked into an objective physical view of reality it's impossible to converse abstractly as they have a need to objectify everything in terms of physicality.

That's the nature of the objective view I guess.

I suppose I will concede that from a purely objective view there would be no evidence for a designer. There could never be any such evidence from that perspective. So the question isn't even meaningful when asked from that perspective.

Why bother asking it, if that's the only perspective that is being considered? It seems futile and unworthy of even asking. The conclusion that the world is 'objective' has already been made.

In order to prove intelligent design, first, you would have to prove the source of intelligence and then prove the purpose or intent of the design.

To prove it just happened, there isn't much to prove...lol It just happened.

Although many attempts to prove otherwise, this still stands.

Only if we're using them to say how reality works. If somebody believes that there's not a designer but you believe there is what do you do?


But it doesn't. You just said that it starts from laws outside the universe. How do laws outside the universe add another turtle any more than a creator outside of it?

I'm asking what would look like "not-design."

The phrase was meant to describe the point of playing a sport (such as basketball,) but there are definitely other reasons people play them.

Others do not have that problem.

Look at that thing you cut out of my post:

I don't even know what to say.


So you're seriously telling me that anything with a beginning that God didn't do on purpose is random? That my life is meaningless?

Well I submit that this is solely because of your own inability to take some things seriously or accept a conflicting viewpoint without ridiculing it.

But the coins wearing out and falling off of the pants as the designer did things with intent has just as much intention as dropping the coins without particularly choosing which way they should land.

I throw people's names into their quotes each time I switch posts (maybe missing a few,) and I thought that would be enough. Do you have any better ideas?

Regarding the inside/outside the box analogy...

We are all subjective in our perception and the understanding thereof, there is no way around that, as it is an established part of our physiological make-up as well as our emotional/cognitive processing ability/structure. So to speak of looking at things 'subjectively' as opposed to objectively truly adds nothing of value, because we all necessarily subject current information to past acceptances, whether that be unconsciously or consciously.

When one states an open opinion without demonstrating the logical connection/train of thought by which that opinion was arrived at, then there is really nothing to assess in terms of objectivity. It is the demonstration which allows another to be able to follow along the progression of thoughts which have led to the conclusion. During such a demonstration, it is easily shown which thoughts depend upon others for their grounding.

The beauty of logic is that it enables one to not only be able to show how they have arrived at a belief/conclusion, but it also allows one to examine their own method of thinking. If pursued backwards long enough, it allows one to not only know what they believe... but why.

It establishes the grounds.

Bushi said
That amounts to something like a few googols [sic] of variables (and growing, if Inflation Theory is correct) to link together in causative relationships.

Well, if one wants to start with an equation like that, I think it is definitely something that would serve to occupy one’s time and provide a virtually endless supply of unknown variables to solve.

But it sure doesn’t seem like a very practical approach to gaining a full understanding of “life, the universe and everything”.

In fact, it virtually guarantees that such a full understanding can never be achieved.

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that up until very recently (the last few decades), the last few centuries of “scientific” investigation have been steadily and purposefully moving toward a position that completely excludes the single most important factor in all of life – the “subjective”.

It is the “subjective” that is the source of all meaning, purpose, value, relevance, quality, significance, usefulness, comparison, importance, evaluation, etc. ad infinitum.

Not only that, but the “subjective” is the source of all the foundations of science itself: logic, math, investigation, comparison, evaluation, differentiation, understanding, knowledge, association, observation, empiricism, etc. ad infinitum.

So it seems extremely curious to me that this thing that is the “source” of all of that, is purposefully and intentionally excluded from all consideration.

I mean, if these tools of “logic” and “science” are so valuable, why aren’t they being used to investigate the single most universally relevant factor in all of existence?

As far as I can tell, the answer to that is “They cannot because they were specifically designed not to.”

Now what’s wrong with this picture?

Ummmm....

"It just happend" is no more proof of "It just happened" than "It was designed" is proof of "It was designed".

Just sayin.

Sky wrote:



And Shoku wrote back:




I have to say Shoku, you assume A LOT! Why don't you attempt to get to know a person instead of jumping to conclusions?

Sky has never said anything like that and I have never seen him "ridicule" anyone. He is the most polite and tactful poster in this club as far as I am concerned.

**

My suggestion would be to make smaller posts and address only one person at a time in each post so we don't have to sift through page long post to find a conversation we are having with you. Also, learn a little about the people you are talking to before you make accusations like the one above.

BTW: The reason I give you this suggestion is because you asked for it.


****

It is only a partial picture.

So what practical approach do you suggest? Astrology?
My entire point was to show the epic task the person suggesting ID really faces, that is assuming an intelligent creator already exists. So we are giving you the biggest hurdle for granted and it is still a huge way from saying humans are the end result of some intent.

Abra of course throws away the meaning of the word and substitutes spirit, its easier to redefine words then back up an argument.

I believe they are stuck in the past. They are still observing things and they still feel that what they feel about what they observe is irrelevant.

To be brutal, they are resisting their own process of becoming conscious of self.

If you have ever read scripture you will notice a lack of the subjective in the writings. They wrote stories about what happened. Period. Nobody wrote about how they felt. Nobody wrote about what they thought about something. They simply wrote stories about what they observed back then. They were not quite conscious of the subjective and they treated their own thoughts and feelings as if they were meaningless. They had less compassion for each other in general.

Today's books are written differently. People write about their points of view, their feelings and their thoughts. People express their opinions. That is awareness of self shining through.

Now science is STILL HOPELESSLY STUCK on the OBJECTIVE VIEW of the world. They are so stuck they have drawn a line in the sand and they challenge anyone to drag them across.

They scoff when someone uses subjective science and they even get angry that anyone dare to use the word "science" in that way. They disregard personal point of view. They dismiss emotions, feeling, intuition, experience etc. They slam the door on their own feelings and points of view. They make rules and demand that everyone follow their rules. They insist that they are the authority on EVERYTHING.

Then they delude themselves into thinking they are going to discover the truth about the universe. They will never find it that way. Not until they do something to crack it. They are like a child with a loaded gun. They don't know what they are messing with. Then they claim that they and only they have an "open mind."

Ridiculous.

Really?

All you are saying is there is no proof of God.(intelligent design)
All we are saying is there is no proof to rule it out.

Proof is right before your eyes.

Take "Mankind" for example. They are considered "intelligent sentient beings, right?" They are also designers. Look at the marvelous designs in all the many societies in the world. Look at all the inventions and technology. They are expressions and products of mankind now living within the universe that "gave birth" (manifested) them.

If you saw a newly born pig would you expect that it "just happened" just because you could not find or see its mother anywhere? Would you seriously think that it just arose from out of the ocean or dirt or that it "just happened!"

There it is, a newly born pig and yet it 'just happened.' No evidence that it has a source. Now you want to ask me to prove that pig has a source or mother.

That is just the first step. Proving the source exists. Right?
If that pig does not have and never did have a mother, then how did it come into existence? Well you are telling me that I cannot assume that the pig must have had a mother pig? If you do that, then you will have to come up with a believable explanation that explains that newly born pig.

You can't say that it "just happened."

Not acceptable. It doesn't work for me. I will keep my assumption that there must have been a mother pig somewhere.

We will then only have the problem to solve about how that mother pig produced an offspring. But you have not gotten by the first big problem. You don't believe in the mother pig because you can't see it anywhere.

I agree Sky.

I think this is the crux of the whole problem right there.

People who think that "It just happened" is somehow a "freebie default explanation" aren't taking the question seriously, IMHO.

I acknowledge the fact that we have different beliefs.

And If I feel like it, I present further explanation of my beliefs.

And I may attempt a deconstructing of both beliefs in an effort to pinpoint the source of the difference in order to reconcile it.

What do you do?

Well, I was considering the laws to be the product of a creator. In other words, my meaning for “the creator” include the quality of being “the last turtle”, whereas “the laws” require another turtle.

But that’s just my definitions. If yours are different then we need to go back to square one.

Ok, now I understand. (It would help if that type of query were presented in the same direct form instead of the form of "putting words in anothers mouth".)

So I can say that I can’t think of anything that I could perceive or imagine that would not look like a design to me.

And I have to make it clear that the first person plural (“we”) you used does not apply to that. That is, I can say what things look like to me, but not what they look like to others.

One of those other reasons is simply “something that one wants to do”. And “following the rules” is what defines the “doingness” of that particular activity.

Nope. Never said or implied anything even remotely like that.

What I am saying is that as far as I’m concerned, there cannot be anything that God didn’t do on purpose, by the very definition of God.

(Noting that the terms “God” and “designer” are exactly synonymous in this context.)

Well, “meaning” is entirely subjective, so there is no way I can answer that for you. Your life may or may not have meaning to you and it may or may not have meaning to a creator. That’s up to you and the creator to determine, each for themselves.

As far as I’m concerned, whole context of this particular point centers around the concept of “intention to create the universe”. If the creator intended for a universe to be created, it was intentional, regardless of the chain of events that led to the creation. Otherwise it was unintentional.

So what is/are the other part/s?

(C'mon Creative, work with me here. This type of "pot shot" doesn't help anything. )

Cool hands

The example I gave about how scripture was written was brought to my attention by someone who claimed that Humans were not 'conscious' back then and only recently became 'conscious' enough to express themselves subjectively.

I found that very interesting and wondered why I had not heard anyone talk about that before. I can't remember where I read that either but it made an impression on me.

Of course there is another theory. Aliens wrote scripture. They are devoid of emotion and compassion and lack imagination. That is their primary weakness. That could also be why all the myths told throughout time are so similar. They just couldn't think of anything new.

This one…
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/sos.pdf

First off, you must understand that I am not arguing for a single creator. Most of the arguments for “creator” seem to be oriented in that direction, so when evaluating what I say, be sure to consider that factor.

With that in mind…

What you’re calling the biggest hurdle is not even a hurdle. As far as I’m concerned, it is a scientifically proven fact that we do create reality and the only “causative agent” in that creation is intention. (ref: PEAR man/machine interface research.)

With that as a starting point, I see the follow-up as being a matter of determining limits.

In other words, the “quailty” has been firmly established. Now it’s just a matter of determining "quanitity".

I think you misunderstand Abra’s intent. (And often mine in the same context.) It is not an attempt to redefine the word for purposes of deception or diversion. It is an attempt to use a word whose general meaning most closely aligns with the properties of the thing being referred to.

The only other option is to go through an extremely laborious task of creating a new word, assigning a new meaning to it, and conveying that new meaning to everyone.

What you're labelling as "redefining" is nothing more than a shortcut for the sake of practicality. And it often fails, as does any type of communication where the meanings of the symbols are not agreed upon. But I don't think there is any deceptive or diversionary intent.

Sky wrote:



Practical? I am much more concerned with 'possible'.



It accurately assesses what would need to be done in order to have a full understanding. Anything less is not recognizing the necessary elements required for a full understanding. Desire does not equate to possibility. We can want to be able to draw a logically sound conclusion all day long, but without enough knowledge/fact to be able to - we cannot, no matter how much we want to.



I am having trouble with this description. All of life is not equal to human cognitive ability/structure. There is no way to remove the subjective nature inherent in human observation/translation/understanding. Because it has repeatedly shown how to be fallible, science and logic attempt to objectively look at things in order to establish a reliable and repeatable set of factors by which to measure things with.



But it is the objective which is being assessed.



The 'subjective' is only the source of these things because they are man-made concepts/terms which are in place to describe things which are not necessarily man-made... the objective.
Subjectivity is necessarily influenced by our understanding, which very well may be wrong. We are subject to emotionally governed thought. Actuality does not care how we feel about it. Objective claims do not depend upon anything 'mushy' for their truth value.

'The sky is blue' is objective.

When I bite into chocolate, I may say "chocolate is good."

What is really happening is this...

"I like the way this tastes." "This tastes good."

Is chocolate inherently 'good'?

No. It is 'good' because I like the taste of it.

That is subjective.

Chocolate is made from Cacao.

That claim has no dependency on my personal(subjective) wants, desires, tastes, preferences, etc.

That is objective, provable, falsifiable, true, and therefore reliable. It can be shown as true again and again regardless of any individual's personal subjectivity.

In order to establish truth/fact which corresponds as closely as possible to the universe as we have come to know it, the things held up as the most reliable forms of measuring that cannot depend upon the subjective nature of personal preferences.



This is just wrong. Psychiatry and psychology do exactly those things as well as modern neuroscience.



This entire post is very misleading and frames subjectivity in such a way as to add value where it does not belong. Logic and science aim to remove the 'subjective', because that is required for the pursuit of truth/fact. While there is inherent value in our subjective nature, it is also extremely prone to error, especially during the unconscious/conscious mental translation(s) of observation into understanding/memory. The notable difference which needs to be discussed when comparing the 'most important' aspects of objectivity and subjectivity is the reliability factor.

Our knowledge shows us beyond any doubt that this universe has been around far longer than we have. Therefore, our understanding of it, while being necessarily subjective, cannot depend upon nor use subjective claims in an attempt to establish facts about something which is not dependant upon that subjectivity for it's existence.

Our subjectivity skews our perspective of things that are not dependant upon it. Just because our perception is subjective does not mean that it is the 'most important' thing for establishing truth/fact. The reason why objectivity is superior over subjectivity for establishing truth/fact have long been established.

I hope this helps to clear up the notion.

It is irrelevant for establishing truth about things which in no way depend upon nor are influenced by our emotions.

How you feel about the sun has no bearing whatsoever on it.



Brutal, or self-absorbed?

Recognizing the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is a huge step in the direction of self-awareness and self-realization. Just because one recognizes the inherent fallibility in the subjective nature of human perception does not in any way conclude that the one doing so is 'resisting' anything other than the error-prone way of subjectivity.





Evidently you have not read much of it, or you would know that this is not even close to being true.



So now, because science and philosophy have identified the inherent erroneous and most often irrelevant nature of a subjective claim, they are somehow 'stuck in the past?'

That is extremely ironic considering that objectivity led us out of the religious dogmatic subjective world that once was ruled by how people subjectively 'felt'.