Originally posted by DigiMark007
At least I don't get beligerent and get warnings.😛
P.S. Yeah...still a bit drunk...but I can still spell, which is sweet. If I didn't say anything, you guys couldn't even tell.
maybe cause on the internet there is no personality in words, or emotions. just a thought ya know, just maybe. lil bit?
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Oh, for Chrissake. I give up.
ok, you seem to not be sure of what you want and then u act as if the other person doesnt get what ur saying. you make the thread named "i think i accidentally broke intelligent design today" and then you cant give evidence to back up that rather large claim. then you or nellinater say its a simple philosophical observation of human nature{i.e. not nearly as big a claim as u made a minute ago}. for chrissake figure out where u stand will ya?
He has. You are putting words into his mouth. This thread of is full of stupidity. People seem to think Zeal is trying to reach farther than he is. Right from the start you should have been able to tell it was a really just a simple observation of human nature, or at least the nature of some people. What he's asking, from what I can tell, is what the implications would be for ID theorists if they changed a small part of their way of thinking. The title reveals that he thinks that perhaps it would mean that ID theorists (colloquial sense of the word for the nitpickers that seem to love to nitpick) would lose all their argument.
Now that's just what I get. Hopefully Zeal will correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness"😉. He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:
What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?
Ah, but we don't see it that way because we design things with a purpose, we see it that way because everything that happens is triggered by something else, otherwise it wouldn't have happened atall.
God is choices manifestation, just like we choose to change things from INSIDE the universe, God chose to start the universe as an outer-universe trigger, meaning he doesn't need a purpose, because purpose only exists when it's created (and he was never created, he just simply exists).
Our minds and God are on a higher level than that of the normal universe, nobody else can see, smell or hear them etc untill we die and go to that higher level which is heaven. But both DO exist.
Originally posted by Nellinator
He has. You are putting words into his mouth. This thread of is full of stupidity. People seem to think Zeal is trying to reach farther than he is. Right from the start you should have been able to tell it was a really just a simple observation of human nature, or at least the nature of some people. What he's asking, from what I can tell, is what the implications would be for ID theorists if they changed a small part of their way of thinking. The title reveals that he thinks that perhaps it would mean that ID theorists (colloquial sense of the word for the nitpickers that seem to love to nitpick) would lose all their argument.Now that's just what I get. Hopefully Zeal will correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure that people figured I was trying to slam evolution because I'm a Christfag.
, but we don't see it that way because we design things with a purpose, we see it that way because everything that happens is triggered by something else, otherwise it wouldn't have happened atall.God is choices manifestation, just like we choose to change things from INSIDE the universe, God chose to start the universe as an outer-universe trigger, meaning he doesn't need a purpose, because purpose only exists when it's created (and he was never created, he just simply exists).
Our minds and God are on a higher level than that of the normal universe, nobody else can see, smell or hear them etc untill we die and go to that higher level which is heaven. But both DO exist.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I believe that there is a Designer, but I do not subscribe to the belief system of intelligent design.
Cool. I have much less problem with people believing in a deity than I do with people believing ID because they believe in a deity. The two don't have to be packaged together, so I'm glad you're able to see through the murky lies and how they pervert science.
Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by BananaKing
Ah, but we don't see it that way because we design things with a purpose, we see it that way because everything that happens is triggered by something else, otherwise it wouldn't have happened at all.God is choices manifestation, just like we choose to change things from INSIDE the universe, God chose to start the universe as an outer-universe trigger, meaning he doesn't need a purpose, because purpose only exists when it's created (and he was never created, he just simply exists).
Our minds and God are on a higher level than that of the normal universe, nobody else can see, smell or hear them etc untill we die and go to that higher level which is heaven. But both DO exist.
So your evidence that god exists is that there can not possibly be any evidence that God exists?
If the universe needs a trigger (god), then what was god's trigger?
I wonder if you are familiar with the multiverse theory, (not a scientific theory) or if you have read Orson Scott Card's book: Children of the Mind ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Jbill311
as far as I know, it is completely untestable, and therefore incapable of being proven right or wrong
Ya, I'm with you. I don't buy the theory, but I respect that you can come right out and say that.