Freethought & Rationalism Archive

7thangel · 03-04-2003, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
Nobody. We each get to determine our own.

That said, then God is justified in everything he does.

7thangel · 03-04-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Because I am a professional astrophysicist and talk to and interact with many other professional astrophysicists, whose careers are to intently observe the universe and try to understand the way in which it works, and exceedingly few of them, if any, believe that the universe clearly displays design and purpose. The apparent "order" of the universe has been explained, very successfully, by our current physics theories.

I'm sorry that the universe makes no sense to you without a god, but frankly, that's not my problem.

Did you say "theories?"

John Page · 03-04-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by John Page
Nobody. We each get to determine our own.

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
That said, then God is justified in everything he does.

LOL. 7thDevil, you determined this!

Cheers, John

Shadowy Man · 03-04-2003, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Did you say "theories?"

Yeah. So?

Keith Russell · 03-04-2003, 12:45 PM

Shadow said:
Yes. It definitely appears that way. I don't claim to know the answer to everything, or to know how things may have played out in evolution on billion year time scales, but from everything that I have learned about the universe through all of my intensive studies of its workings, I am fairly confident that there's nothing about evolution that requires a non-naturalistic explanation.

Keith:
Shadow, I don't think the atheist/evolutionary position is usually explained in nearly enough detail and/or with nearly enough precision.

I do not believe that evolution 'just happens'. I believe that organisms are designed, but that the process is being directed/designed solely by the physical nature of the entities/organisms involved, as they interact with each other and with their environment.

Just because evolution is not being (and in my opinion, cannot be) directed by some external awareness and/or consciousness, doesn't mean that there is no 'design' taking place.

Why let the creationists get away with the claim that 'design' can only be a conscious process?

Keith.

Keith Russell · 03-04-2003, 01:03 PM

Answerer said:
"I bet Keith will love to see some of us burn in hell right now."

A bet you would surely lose.

Yes, I have not been participating in this forum as much lately as I have in the past, but I have never believed in 'God', heaven, or hell--

--and see no reason (literally) to start such nonsense now.

Keith.

Philosoft · 03-04-2003, 01:08 PM

Keith Russell,

I believe, in the post you quoted, Answerer is referring to the gentleman with the username Keith. He arrived whilst you were on hiatus, and is currently plying his creationist trade in BC&E if you're interested.

Cheers,
Philosoft - Philosophy mod

Keith Russell · 03-04-2003, 02:47 PM

Phil:

Ah, a usurper, eh?

Thanks for the update...I have exchanged words with this other 'Keith', and yes, the comment seems more suited to him, than me...

thanks,

The 'other' Keith.

Shadowy Man · 03-04-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell

Just because evolution is not being (and in my opinion, cannot be) directed by some external awareness and/or consciousness, doesn't mean that there is no 'design' taking place.

Why let the creationists get away with the claim that 'design' can only be a conscious process?

Well, this idea is counter to the general usage of the word "design". If you are redefining the word then I need to restipulate my argument.

My concept of what the word "design" means is such that an end use is known before fabrication. Thus, something is being built towards a goal.

Keith Russell · 03-04-2003, 08:49 PM

Shadow:

By your definition of 'design', I would agree. Evolution doesn't have an intent or purpose 'in mind' when variations occur. Some variations 'work' and are successful, others are not.

I would certainly agree that the human process of designing a car, is quite different from the evolutionary process of 'designing' a human being, for example.

You might not call the latter the result of 'design', but I believe that 'design' is a broad enough concept that it can encompass a wide range of processes under the same general principle.

Keith.

03-04-2003, 01:03 PM	#326
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Oh, Please! Answerer said: "I bet Keith will love to see some of us burn in hell right now." A bet you would surely lose. Yes, I have not been participating in this forum as much lately as I have in the past, but I have never believed in 'God', heaven, or hell-- --and see no reason (literally) to start such nonsense now. Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2003, 12:45 PM	#325
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Shadow said: Yes. It definitely appears that way. I don't claim to know the answer to everything, or to know how things may have played out in evolution on billion year time scales, but from everything that I have learned about the universe through all of my intensive studies of its workings, I am fairly confident that there's nothing about evolution that requires a non-naturalistic explanation. Keith: Shadow, I don't think the atheist/evolutionary position is usually explained in nearly enough detail and/or with nearly enough precision. I do not believe that evolution 'just happens'. I believe that organisms are designed, but that the process is being directed/designed solely by the physical nature of the entities/organisms involved, as they interact with each other and with their environment. Just because evolution is not being (and in my opinion, cannot be) directed by some external awareness and/or consciousness, doesn't mean that there is no 'design' taking place. Why let the creationists get away with the claim that 'design' can only be a conscious process? Keith.

03-04-2003, 01:08 PM	#327
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Keith Russell, I believe, in the post you quoted, Answerer is referring to the gentleman with the username Keith. He arrived whilst you were on hiatus, and is currently plying his creationist trade in BC&E if you're interested. Cheers, Philosoft - Philosophy mod

03-04-2003, 02:47 PM	#328
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Phil: Ah, a usurper, eh? Thanks for the update...I have exchanged words with this other 'Keith', and yes, the comment seems more suited to him, than me... thanks, The 'other' Keith.

03-04-2003, 08:49 PM	#330
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Shadow: By your definition of 'design', I would agree. Evolution doesn't have an intent or purpose 'in mind' when variations occur. Some variations 'work' and are successful, others are not. I would certainly agree that the human process of designing a car, is quite different from the evolutionary process of 'designing' a human being, for example. You might not call the latter the result of 'design', but I believe that 'design' is a broad enough concept that it can encompass a wide range of processes under the same general principle. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.