46
kairosfocus
08/14/2011
4:32 am
Dr Liddle:
Re: And, frankly, what fingerprints there are of a designer on life do not look to me like the fingerprints of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. This is a point I’ve brought up a number of times, and so far nobody seems to have engaged it.
This is astonishing, in light of what has been going on for months now.
Sadly astonishing, as you seem to have conveniently forgotten the actual facts of the matter.
And, yes, I have to use a strong word, “conveniently.”
Let’s go over this one more time, for record.
First, have you ever read TMLO, and in particular, the epilogue? As, you have been asked to do, any number of times?
If you do so, you will see that there is — from the very first technical ID book [1984!], a consistent confinement of scientific reasoning to that which is based on empirical warrant from observable signs, on inference to best explanation for origins matters. In particular, the evidence is able to support an inference to design as process on a scientific basis, but onward discussion of identity of designers is a worldviews level project; i.e. a philosophical exercise.
That is plainly a legitimate exercise — and one far more readily supported by the cosmological side of design theory [that's why there is that joke about astrophysicists rushing out from their observatories, to get baptised into the First Church of God, Big Bang during the lunch hour meditation on monkeying with the physics fine tuning led by agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle . . . ] — but that is an exercise that is far broader than the proper focus of exploring the empirical evidence and best explanation on the signs we observe in cell based life and its traces in the fossil record.
I must note as well that the tone of your cited remarks shows an evident hostility to “an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God.”
I suggest that you reflect on whether that evident hostility could be blinding you to the actual balance of the evidence. Or, in the words of Jesus to some of the people of Judaea in his day:
Jn 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word . . . 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Now, let us turn back to focus on the scientific question.
The summary of the matter on OOL is much as I have repeatedly pointed out to you over months, and WHICH YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED OR BRUSHED ASIDE.
Namely, that the origin of life on earth based on Carbon chemistry in the cell, through molecular nanomachines appears — on the work of Venter et al — can be explained on a nanotech lab a few technology generations beyond where Venter is now.
That is one context in which the issue of inference to a designer within or beyond the cosmos is a worldviews level inference, not an exercise of science. Which does not render the exercise illegitimate, it simply recognises that it goes beyond what science can properly do.
We all have a privilege, a right and even a duty to ask and seek answers for such big questions.
Back to science.
What the science on signs of life in living forms warrants is the inference to design as process: That Tweredun.
Whodunit, is a much broader forensic-historical exercise on all sorts of issues and clues, or even a personal relationship exercise based on actual answered prayer or the like.
If I were embarking on the latter, I would pause to note that the evident design of life fits into a cosmos where we see that from key foundational parameters and laws, it is fine tuned for life, and also credibly had a beginning.
That is the only observed cosmos we have, is contingent. It is not self-explanatory, it did not suddenly emerge form a genuine nothing, it depends on necessary causal factors that are external to it.
Taking the two together, and even through a multiverse speculation, we are looking at design by a powerful, intelligent, purposeful architect of the cosmos who is a necessary being, one that evidently had life in mind from the outset. That is not yet an omnipotent, omniscient Creator, but it is consistent with it.
As to omnibenevolent, we find ourselves objectively bound by ought, starting with our sense that we have rights and OUGHT to be treated fairly. Those who object to evils and to evil, imply much the same.
Notice, we are here looking at ethics, a non-scientific, worldviews level topic.
Now, too, we observe that Hume’s guillotine points to an IS-OUGHT gap. That gap must be bridged somehow, if we are to have a comprehensive, credible worldview.
The only way to do that is to have a foundational is in a worldview that answers to the empirical evidence as above, and at the same time provides an IS capable of carrying the weight of OUGHT. Where, for sure, evolutionary materialism cannot do so, as matter, energy, space, time and blind forces of chance and necessity plainly have in them no ises that can lead to a real ought, only to prudence or “what can I get away with.” This extends to any monist system, including pantheistic ones.
Given the Eutyphro dilemma that challenges any claimed root of being which does not inherently enfold such a foundation for ought, the only credible worldview foundational IS that can bear OUGHT — notice the summary inference to best explanation across major live options — is an inherently good Creator God who would make a cosmos in which his character is stamped. Such a cosmos could then have in it a class of beings that in order to be capable of virtue, thought he power to choose and to love, must have significant freedom of choice. Such creatures will be morally governed, i.e. they will fall under the power of ought, stamped in in conscience etc. (And that BTW is the answer to the so-called problem of evil too, there is demonstrably no contradiction involved in such an inherently good creator opening up a world in which love is possible.)
I suggest you read the introductory discussion here, and that here too. Do, read both in context.
G’day
GEM of TKI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again with your extreme superiority complex.
jesus? I thought you IDiots say that ID isn't about religious beliefs?
Back to science? gordo, you've never even come close to science and neither have any of the other IDiots.
"...you seem to have conveniently forgotten the actual facts of the matter..."
gordo, that statement applies to you very well, although it would be even more accurate to say: 'you have never known the actual facts of the matter'.
Your lunacy gets more extreme every day. When you die you should donate what's left of your pea brain to science. It would be a good teaching aid in the diagnoses of mental defects, and it might as well be used for something productive. You certainly haven't used it in that way.
There is another thing that is certain, and that is that the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is "a non-scientific, worldviews level topic", and a crazy religious one at that.
One more thing for now, gordo: You OUGHT to just shut the fuck up.
kairosfocus
08/14/2011
4:32 am
Dr Liddle:
Re: And, frankly, what fingerprints there are of a designer on life do not look to me like the fingerprints of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. This is a point I’ve brought up a number of times, and so far nobody seems to have engaged it.
This is astonishing, in light of what has been going on for months now.
Sadly astonishing, as you seem to have conveniently forgotten the actual facts of the matter.
And, yes, I have to use a strong word, “conveniently.”
Let’s go over this one more time, for record.
First, have you ever read TMLO, and in particular, the epilogue? As, you have been asked to do, any number of times?
If you do so, you will see that there is — from the very first technical ID book [1984!], a consistent confinement of scientific reasoning to that which is based on empirical warrant from observable signs, on inference to best explanation for origins matters. In particular, the evidence is able to support an inference to design as process on a scientific basis, but onward discussion of identity of designers is a worldviews level project; i.e. a philosophical exercise.
That is plainly a legitimate exercise — and one far more readily supported by the cosmological side of design theory [that's why there is that joke about astrophysicists rushing out from their observatories, to get baptised into the First Church of God, Big Bang during the lunch hour meditation on monkeying with the physics fine tuning led by agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle . . . ] — but that is an exercise that is far broader than the proper focus of exploring the empirical evidence and best explanation on the signs we observe in cell based life and its traces in the fossil record.
I must note as well that the tone of your cited remarks shows an evident hostility to “an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God.”
I suggest that you reflect on whether that evident hostility could be blinding you to the actual balance of the evidence. Or, in the words of Jesus to some of the people of Judaea in his day:
Jn 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word . . . 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Now, let us turn back to focus on the scientific question.
The summary of the matter on OOL is much as I have repeatedly pointed out to you over months, and WHICH YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY IGNORED OR BRUSHED ASIDE.
Namely, that the origin of life on earth based on Carbon chemistry in the cell, through molecular nanomachines appears — on the work of Venter et al — can be explained on a nanotech lab a few technology generations beyond where Venter is now.
That is one context in which the issue of inference to a designer within or beyond the cosmos is a worldviews level inference, not an exercise of science. Which does not render the exercise illegitimate, it simply recognises that it goes beyond what science can properly do.
We all have a privilege, a right and even a duty to ask and seek answers for such big questions.
Back to science.
What the science on signs of life in living forms warrants is the inference to design as process: That Tweredun.
Whodunit, is a much broader forensic-historical exercise on all sorts of issues and clues, or even a personal relationship exercise based on actual answered prayer or the like.
If I were embarking on the latter, I would pause to note that the evident design of life fits into a cosmos where we see that from key foundational parameters and laws, it is fine tuned for life, and also credibly had a beginning.
That is the only observed cosmos we have, is contingent. It is not self-explanatory, it did not suddenly emerge form a genuine nothing, it depends on necessary causal factors that are external to it.
Taking the two together, and even through a multiverse speculation, we are looking at design by a powerful, intelligent, purposeful architect of the cosmos who is a necessary being, one that evidently had life in mind from the outset. That is not yet an omnipotent, omniscient Creator, but it is consistent with it.
As to omnibenevolent, we find ourselves objectively bound by ought, starting with our sense that we have rights and OUGHT to be treated fairly. Those who object to evils and to evil, imply much the same.
Notice, we are here looking at ethics, a non-scientific, worldviews level topic.
Now, too, we observe that Hume’s guillotine points to an IS-OUGHT gap. That gap must be bridged somehow, if we are to have a comprehensive, credible worldview.
The only way to do that is to have a foundational is in a worldview that answers to the empirical evidence as above, and at the same time provides an IS capable of carrying the weight of OUGHT. Where, for sure, evolutionary materialism cannot do so, as matter, energy, space, time and blind forces of chance and necessity plainly have in them no ises that can lead to a real ought, only to prudence or “what can I get away with.” This extends to any monist system, including pantheistic ones.
Given the Eutyphro dilemma that challenges any claimed root of being which does not inherently enfold such a foundation for ought, the only credible worldview foundational IS that can bear OUGHT — notice the summary inference to best explanation across major live options — is an inherently good Creator God who would make a cosmos in which his character is stamped. Such a cosmos could then have in it a class of beings that in order to be capable of virtue, thought he power to choose and to love, must have significant freedom of choice. Such creatures will be morally governed, i.e. they will fall under the power of ought, stamped in in conscience etc. (And that BTW is the answer to the so-called problem of evil too, there is demonstrably no contradiction involved in such an inherently good creator opening up a world in which love is possible.)
I suggest you read the introductory discussion here, and that here too. Do, read both in context.
G’day
GEM of TKI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again with your extreme superiority complex.
jesus? I thought you IDiots say that ID isn't about religious beliefs?
Back to science? gordo, you've never even come close to science and neither have any of the other IDiots.
"...you seem to have conveniently forgotten the actual facts of the matter..."
gordo, that statement applies to you very well, although it would be even more accurate to say: 'you have never known the actual facts of the matter'.
Your lunacy gets more extreme every day. When you die you should donate what's left of your pea brain to science. It would be a good teaching aid in the diagnoses of mental defects, and it might as well be used for something productive. You certainly haven't used it in that way.
There is another thing that is certain, and that is that the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is "a non-scientific, worldviews level topic", and a crazy religious one at that.
One more thing for now, gordo: You OUGHT to just shut the fuck up.
