Christianity

[Harry Baird]

I give up no rights.

You assume that you have a choice.

Now I’m hopping mad!! This is an outrage!

Right fella; wrong fella... well, OK, we know which one you are.

[Immanuel Can]

It includes all conscious potentials as one,

That's Hinduism, perhaps, or some form of Pantheism. It has no smattering of the Jewish or Christian God in it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From now on please hear this tune when you see or read a post of mine. Thanks.

I prefer this version.

Perhaps we can compromise with this one?

Si yo fuera presidente
Si yo fuera un presidente
No hubieran Fuerzas Armadas
Las guerras se acabarían
Los muchachos regresaran
A casa, donde pertenecen

etc etc.

[Belinda]

The 'universe' is neither accidental nor the result of a final cause. The 'universe' is designed by necessity , necessity is not a final (teleological) cause.

No, sorry: by definition, the universe is not a "necessary being." It's a contingent one. And we can tell, very easily, scientifically, that that is exactly what it is. It could have "not existed" at all, it certainly "could be otherwise than it is," so it's not, in any precise sense, a "necessary" entity.

But your phrase "is designed" is sneaked in, in a very interesting way. Anything that's "designed" is not an "accident." So you're saying the universe was "designed"... Figure out the logical corollary...you can do it all by yourself.

So you've just got the case wrong, B. Nothing in science or logic will support that claim you've made.

But, ontologically ,design does not presuppose designer. If the universe of discourse is confined to the human the design presupposes designer. But we are not talking about what people do.

Note when I wrote 'universe' I put startle marks each side of the word. This is because 'universe' was to stand in for the more precise existence itself. Also note the word 'universe' was your choice of word not mine.

[Harry Baird]

Here's what I know: people are people. Aboriginals are intrinsically no worse and no better than anybody else

Dude. I'm not saying that indigenous people are, as individuals, morally better than any other individuals from any other culture, but they clearly as groups had/have a more sustainable way of living than we have now.

Only "sustainable" because primitive. It was every bit as wasteful, indifferent to the environment and locally messy as anybody else's life, but more limited as to means. That's all. Don't lionize weakness or inability. That's all it was.

But, of course, we have to take all of that with a very, very, very big grain of salt, because you are a conservative, fundamentalist Christian who wants to promote conservative, fundamentalist Christianity over all other systems of belief, and thus you have a huge, huge incentive to denigrate so-called "primitive" cultures.

I call you out on your lies. Indigenous Australians are part of the longest continuous culture on planet Earth. Mainstream science puts their longevity at tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, and there were plenty of them on this continent when it was colonised. They are well known for surviving specifically because they were not "wasteful, indifferent to the environment and locally messy", but rather because they had a sustainable culture.

You present as "weakness or inability" what was really well-considered sustainability. You are wrong. I know you'll never admit that, though.

[Immanuel Can]

...design does not presuppose designer.

Yes, it does.

Show me anything "designed" that did not have a designer. But don't say "the universe," because you haven't shown that one...you're just hoping it's true.

Show me something else that was "designed" but without a "designer." That should be easy for you to do, if what you're saying is true.

[Harry Baird]

Perhaps we can compromise with this one?

I like it. I don't understand its context, but I like it.

[Immanuel Can]

Only "sustainable" because primitive. It was every bit as wasteful, indifferent to the environment and locally messy as anybody else's life, but more limited as to means. That's all. Don't lionize weakness or inability. That's all it was.

But, of course, we have to take all of that with a very, very, very big grain of salt,

No. Just with a history book.

Who I am is unimportant. What the truth is, that's what's important.

[Harry Baird]

Who I am is unimportant. What the truth is, that's what's important.

The problem, my friend, is that you are integral to that which you proclaim to be truth. The two cannot be separated.

[Belinda]

...design does not presuppose designer.

Yes, it does.

Show me anything "designed" that did not have a designer. But don't say "the universe," because you haven't shown that one...you're just hoping it's true.

Show me something else that was "designed" but without a "designer." That should be easy for you to do, if what you're saying is true.

Existence itself has no designer. Nature has no designer. Natural selection has no designer. |The force of gravity has no designer. Yet there is harmony and order.

[Immanuel Can]

Who I am is unimportant. What the truth is, that's what's important.

The problem, my friend, is that you are integral to that which you proclaim to be truth. The two cannot be separated.

Actually, they can.

As Shakespeare wrote, "Can the Devil speak true?" (Macbeth). And yes, is the answer.

The character of the speaker and the truth of his utterance are two separate issues. Anyone who forgets that, is simply guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

...design does not presuppose designer.

Yes, it does.

Show me anything "designed" that did not have a designer. But don't say "the universe," because you haven't shown that one...you're just hoping it's true.

Show me something else that was "designed" but without a "designer." That should be easy for you to do, if what you're saying is true.

Existence itself has no designer. Nature has no designer.

Nature? That's the universe. You're now assuming your conclusion, not proving your case.

Give me a different case. Give me some object within nature that is designed without a designer.

[Belinda]

Yes, it does.

Show me anything "designed" that did not have a designer. But don't say "the universe," because you haven't shown that one...you're just hoping it's true.

Show me something else that was "designed" but without a "designer." That should be easy for you to do, if what you're saying is true.

Existence itself has no designer. Nature has no designer.

Nature? That's the universe. You're now assuming your conclusion, not proving your case.

Give me a different case. Give me some object within nature that is designed without a designer.

Nature is not the same as the universe. The universe is a very very large natural system.

I already did. The force of gravity is natural as is natural selection. Also I suppose there may remain on the face of the Earth some as yet undiscovered life form or maybe an underground stream that has not yet been re-designed by man. Actually I saw a newspaper photo of a deep sea fish , formerly unknown to man, who has a transparent head. He was not intentionally designed.

[Harry Baird]

Who I am is unimportant. What the truth is, that's what's important.

The problem, my friend, is that you are integral to that which you proclaim to be truth. The two cannot be separated.

Actually, they can.

As Shakespeare wrote, "Can the Devil speak true?" (Macbeth). And yes, is the answer.

The character of the speaker and the truth of his utterance are two separate issues. Anyone who forgets that, is simply guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

Yes, the Devil can speak true, just as the biased man can speak true - but you're a fool if you default to believing either, because, often enough, and significantly enough, they sure as hell do not.

[Immanuel Can]

Existence itself has no designer. Nature has no designer.

Nature? That's the universe. You're now assuming your conclusion, not proving your case.

Give me a different case. Give me some object within nature that is designed without a designer.

Nature is not the same as the universe. The universe is a very very large natural system.

Well, "nature" whatever you consider that to be, came into existence WITH the universe, as part of the same design. And I say that had a Designer, and you say it didn't need one, even though you say it's a "design."

You can't appeal to the case of the universe (or nature) in an effort to prove that the universe (or nature) proves something can be designed without a designer. That's the disputed point.

So give me a different case. Give me an object that is "designed" but not by any "designer."