THE GRUMPY SKEPTIC
Trying to fight all the illogical whoo whoo in our city, and our nation.

A blog about Personal Journals, Religion & Faith, and Technology.
About thegrumpyskeptic


Member Since:
December 28, 2007
Last Signed In:
November 13, 2008
Profile Views:
66
Blog Views:
949
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Happy Veterans Day
Happy Holloween!
Election Is Coming Up
Marlee Shrider and Prop. 8, Darn that's a hot topic
All the fuss on Prop. 8
Why God Wont Answer Amputee Prayers
Why Intelligent Design Isn't Science
Marylee Shrider dumber than she looks
Dam Ouija Board
Any Skeptical Groups or Clubs in Bako?
Archives
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


thegrumpyskeptic - > THE GRUMPY SKEPTIC -> Why Intelligent Design Isn't Science
Why Intelligent Design Isn't Science

Hey all, just another awesome day, well I was doing some research, on why ID isn't science, and well ran across an article at

http://www.naturalism.org/s...

that was too good not to just post, so here it is, feast your eyes on this, and finally see why the new Ben Stein movie is dumb, and why our poor journalist was wrong. (Yipes I guess skeptics are grumpier at 4:37 AM. Enjoy you guys

Why Intelligent Design Isn’t Science

Contrary to the claims of some proponents of intelligent design (ID), science does not presume naturalism. So science doesn't reject ID because ID is supernatural.    Nevertheless, science does reject ID because the ID hypothesis exemplifies none of the characteristics of legitimate scientific explanation.  For some basic characteristics of scientific explanations, click here.

Some of those sympathetic to intelligent design (ID) argue that science as it’s currently taught assumes naturalism, and further that science tries to rule out ID as unscientific on the grounds that ID invokes the supernatural. 1 But science makes no claims about naturalism. Scientists simply propose explanations which are accepted or rejected on the basis of their scientific merit.

Intelligent design fails as science not because science a priori rules out the supernatural (methodologically it doesn’t need to do this, and in fact wastes no time on the matter), but because the intelligent design hypothesis has no merit as a scientific explanation.

Because science doesn’t presume naturalism, there’s no basis for supposing it violates any U.S. constitutional prohibition on states favoring or establishing a particular religious or philosophical view. So ID need not be imported into the science curriculum to provide "balance" or give non-naturalistic views "equal time." Because ID conclusively fails as good science, it should not be presented or taught as a viable scientific alternative to Darwinian accounts of evolution. But ID could usefully be discussed as an example of pseudo-science, helping to clarify what science actually is, and does.

Below, I’ve set out what I take to be some fairly uncontroversial, central characteristics of legitimate scientific explanation, and then list reasons why ID doesn’t embody or exemplify these characteristics. I don’t pretend that these are exhaustive, that they aren’t redundant to some extent, or couldn’t be improved upon in many respects, so I invite interested parties to improve upon them. But it’s crucial to note that in characterizing science, none of the points below invoke the natural/supernatural distinction. By virtue of its aims and methods, science ends up producing a unified view of the world, but it doesn’t start out with ontological assumptions that qualify it as a partisan philosophy.A first cut at some basic characteristics of scientific explanation:

Awesome article, and I can only close, if we must teach intelligent design next to evolution, why not fortune telling along side math, World War Two Denial in History class, or Prayer Healing along side GERM THEORY!!! or whatever a crazy person in a given subject wants to teach. hope you all enjoyed this is your grumpy skeptic going to get some sleep

  1. Other things being equal, science seeks the simplest and most parsimonious peer-reviewed explanations, based on empirical, inter-subjective evidence.

  2. Science tries to minimize the number of unverifiable or ad-hoc assumptions in constructing explanations.

  3. Science is conservative in hypothesizing new explanatory factors: to the extent possible, explanations will be sought among phenomena already known to exist before positing other phenomena as explanatory factors. Science is not unnecessarily inflationary in its ontology.

  4. Science seeks testable, verifiable, and transparently mechanistic or specifiable explanations for phenomena - no mysterious or unspecifiable processes play a more than a passing role in scientific accounts.

  5. Entities accepted by science are either directly observed or indirectly inferred via experiment or theory, where such inference predicts specific characteristics of the entity that can be tested for in later experiments or that bear on other predictions.

  6. Science seeks explanations which connect phenomena with one another, which unify different levels and domains of phenomena, and which generate testable predictions. Good scientific explanations are in these senses productive.

  7. In science, an explanation can’t simply be posited to match the target phenomenon in order to fill an explanatory gap - there has to be independent evidence of the features of the explanation.

  8. Before positing explanatory factors that have no other empirical support besides their function of filling an explanatory gap, science will declare the target phenomena to be as yet not fully explained.

  9. Science will put stock in a provisional, as yet incomplete explanation involving known processes and entities rather than in an explanation which claims completeness at the cost of invoking ad-hoc, disconnected, and mysterious entities and processes (see 2, 3, 4 above).

  10. Science seeks explanations for all phenomena in its purview; it always asks what determines the characteristics of any phenomenon that figures in its explanations: how did that originate, what explains that?

 

 

Why intelligent design (ID) isn’t science (the corresponding points above are in parentheses):

  1. ID leaves the designing intelligence unexplained in the same way as ID claims that "irreducible complexity" is left unexplained by Darwinian selective processes, but worse, since it offers no specific hypotheses or mechanisms. ID hasn’t produced an explanation, it simply pushes the demand for explanation back a step and so is otiose. Thus:

  2. ID posits an extra entity unneeded for explanation, so violates parsimony and simplicity (1).

  3. ID seeks explanations outside of well-substantiated, empirically-supported phenomena without fully investigating the adequacy of explanations which restrict themselves to such phenomena. ID is thus not conservative in its explanations, but is instead inflationary 2 (3, 8, 9).

  4. ID doesn’t specify how design is carried out: no mechanism or process is proposed, and further, no means of discovering this mechanism is proposed. The mechanism remains unacceptably mysterious with no hope of being clarified (4).

  5. ID supplies no observational or inferential evidence for a designer that specifies or predicts its specific characteristics. (5).

  6. Since no mechanism or process is shown by which intelligent design works, the designer posited by ID is left unconnected to other phenomena (6).

  7. ID lacks any explanatory or predictive power; it is unproductive 3 (6):

    • ID doesn’t predict biological features that arise as change occurs in organisms.

    • ID doesn’t explain the particular biological mechanisms that are found in organisms.

    • ID can’t explain patchwork, jury-rigged, or sub-optimal organic "designs." 4

    • ID doesn’t suggest any experiments to prove the design hypothesis.

    • The designer assumption does no real explanatory work; it simply pushes the question further back (1, 3).

  1. ID provides no independent evidence for the designer beyond its purported explanatory function (i.e., to fill the explanatory gap), so the designer is just an ad-hoc explanatory posit, like elan vital, phlogiston, etc. (7).

  1. In leaving the designer unexplained and its characteristics unspecified, ID fails to treat the designing intelligence as a possible object of scientific explanation (10).

 

Additional points:

On proving a negative

: In general, ID is a negative thesis - that standard evolutionary explanations cannot, however well elaborated, account for some particular phenomena, e.g., "irreducible complexity." The plausibility of the design hypothesis is thus only a function of the purported failure of selectionist explanations. But there is no argument to support the idea that selectionist explanations will not or cannot be completed, especially as biological mechanisms become better understood, and indeed many selectionist explanations are complete to the satisfaction of many scientists. This means, if selectionist explanations are completed and filled out to a reasonable degree (what’s reasonable is of course a bone of contention), then the intelligent design hypothesis loses this sort of support. The same goes for the origins of life: once a plausible mechanism is established, then ID becomes otiose.

On falsifiability

: It is often supposed, although not universally agreed, that scientific hypotheses and conjectures are at least in principle falsifiable, if not directly testable. In contrast, ID is unfalsifiable: no experiment could prove or disprove it. ID simply says that what selectionism or other science can’t explain is explicable by appeal to design, so ID can always fill the gaps left by science: thus there’s no way to prove it wrong. (This point is taken from Larry Arnhart’s piece" Evolution and the New Creationism: A Proposal for Compromise," Skeptic V8#4, 2001, p. 48.)

On low probability events

 

: Science accepts the possibility that certain events and conditions may have been extremely low probability occurrences, but doesn’t draw any ontologically inflationary conclusions from this. In contrast, ID draws the inference that since (let us concede for the sake of argument) it’s highly improbable that the universe has constants which are favorable to life, or that life arose at all, there must have been an intelligent agent that chose the constants and/or created life. But this inference simply begs the question of the prior probability of the existence of the designer.

Posted in the Religion & Faith interest group.
Topics: Skepticisim, Bunk, whoo whoo, id, Intelligent Design
posted by thegrumpyskeptic on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 04:48 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 166 times
66 comments from 19 users

1 2

posted by thegrumpyskeptic on Jul 18, 2008 at 01:51 AM

Holy Potatoes, tons of comments

posted by possummomma on May 9, 2008 at 09:41 PM

Hey all,

Thanks for the support...it means a ton.  I almost couldn't believe what I was being told, regarding Wayfarer's commentary on the situation.  There's really nothing to say, is there?  You either believe that Chrissy is who she claims to be or you don't.  I do, however, find the irony to be stunning - Wayfarer, king of multiple user id's - ...is suggesting that someone else is being manipulative or misrepresenting themselves?  That's quite the laugh.   Like I've seen said before, there is some intense projection going on here.   But,...most of all, I feel badly for people like Buffoo/Wayfarer.  I've had many, many helping hands this week.  There has not been one need that wasn't met for the children, despite the upheaval.  Chrissy, Dave, Abi, and the Becks...thank you.   Anyone wiling to sit up with our kids or give Mike a break deserves kudos and hugs.

-Pmomma

posted by randomfactor on May 9, 2008 at 08:20 PM

Buffoo reminds me of Gandhi's famous aphorism about Christ, whom he confessed to admiring.  "I do not admire your Christians," he continued.  "They are so unlike your Christ."

.

"Orthodox" Christianity--that is, the standard-variety American version--has little of compassion about it, it seems

.

PS, Buffoo:  Oh, *YES* you are. 

posted by sagefever on May 9, 2008 at 04:06 PM

I'll be keeping nothing but good thoughts for Possum in my heart and mind.

Way~ there is a time and a place for everything,this is not the time for being uncharitable. Remember when P. thought tkozy was "manipulating" the blogs? He was not,and she felt terrible and apologized for it. I know you'd do the same but why not save yourself that?

I said then and I say now~having been manipulated before myself~ I'd rather error in charity and goodwill than error in being unkind.

 

posted by Wayfarer on May 9, 2008 at 03:57 PM

I am well aware that your are seriously ill Possum and I pray for the best for you, but misrepresenting yourself, trying to manipulate the blogs, and slanderous attacks doesn't help you any Possum/Chrissy.  P.S. we are not as dumb as you think we are. 

posted by ChrissyL on May 9, 2008 at 02:19 PM

Wayfer - Still playing games Possum.

The only blogger playing games is you.  I don't take potshots at seriously ill neighbors, way.  It's hard to think kind thoughts about you right now.  If you believe in god you need to open your heart and listen. 

Random -Chrissy, could you give an off-line address to send good-wishes cards?  

I'll send you a pm.  The update is that she's going to be taken down to UCLA next week to see if they can help.  We're trying to help them get kids to and from school without stress and keep the kids distracted.  She's supposedly coming home in a bit but it's been an in-and-out process all this week. 

posted by randomfactor on May 9, 2008 at 08:25 AM

Wayfarer, I thought my estimation of you had reached its nadir. Here's one of those rare occasions when I was in error.  You truly are an orthodox Christian.  No doubt you'll take that as a compliment; rest assured it is no such thing.

.

Chrissy, could you give an off-line address to send good-wishes cards?  

posted by Wayfarer on May 9, 2008 at 07:00 AM

Still playing games Possum.


posted by ChrissyL on May 9, 2008 at 01:11 AM

 Of course the people on the blog care about Possum...why would you even say a thing like that?  Anyone know how she is doing?

I was responding to Wayfarer who has accused me of being possummomma in the past (thank you you-know-who for reminding me that Way did that before).  I know some care or else I would have said "In case any of you care."  Apologies for not being clear.  I don't know what is o.k. to share but her father said she is in pain.  Her kidneys are bad.  Once more I'm sorry if I worded it badly.

posted by NancyII on May 8, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Of course the people on the blog care about Possum...why would you even say a thing like that?  Anyone know how she is doing?

Only 3 people can remove posts. 1. Jason, the moderator,  2. The person who started the blog,  and 3.  The person who commented.

posted by ChrissyL on May 8, 2008 at 11:16 PM

 Hey Possum;)

Possummomma is in the hospital in case you care. Where did she post? Did someone erase her post? 

posted by witterpitters on May 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM

:-)  Audrey - glad you enjoyed the salad!

The BIG RIP!!!! kinda like my pants (that shrank in the dryer!) did! HAHAHA!  See the world IS obese!!!  Too many big macs!  Gonna rrriiipppppppppppppp those pants!!

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 09:26 AM

 

Witters

I'm still thinking about that red potato salad.  Ummmm

Random

Repeating big bangs.  That's my hope.   Ad infinitum or nauseam. 

I saw a new documentary on Discover Channel a couple of months ago .  It seems the latest scientific theory for the end of time is the BIG RIP.........OK, waiting for jokes.

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.htm l

 

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 09:17 AM

I think that's our ultimate purpose in the Universe--to kick-start the next one.

posted by ChicaEscuela on May 8, 2008 at 09:17 AM

It matters to some people, because science as it is disproves a literal interpretation of their religion.  If they can no longer convince people that every letter of their holy book is true, then they can no longer arbitrarily claim to be moral authorities.  It matters to them, because to lose this battle is to lose their power.

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 09:13 AM

Random

I imagine that's where he wishes we all were. 

posted by witterpitters on May 8, 2008 at 09:13 AM

AllRED:  it was nice meeting you at the BBQ :-)  Thanks for the ice & soda.  Maybe you can stay longer for the next get together :-)

Jason:  ditto!!!!!  Your daughter is A-DOR-ABLE!!!!  What a cutie :-)

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 09:10 AM

They *ALWAYS* claim deathbed conversions.  Darwin got the same treatment at the hand of those people his theories irritated. 

posted by witterpitters on May 8, 2008 at 09:09 AM

allRED:  I guess my take on this whole discussion is that it doesn't matter HOW we got here, just that we make the most of our time while here. Nobody gets off this planet alive!!

Although, what IS 'dead"?  The body may be gone, but what about the "soul" "spirit"?  IMO, we never really leave! There will be those who say gone is gone, but really? How do we know since we are still "alive" - so to speak! Is there "reasoning" behind those who have physically left us? Other then to make room for others to take that "space". Why have more then 100 thousand people physically "left" this place if not to make room on our overpopulated earth for newbies?  Why are there disasters that take many to the "other side"?  Why do some see, hear others from the "other side"  and others do not?  I don't believe ANY of these questions can logically be answered! Until WE cross over!

 

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 09:08 AM

Audrey, Ron's claiming that Sagan knows better now, suffering the eternal fires of Hell.    Of course, he's really helping with the prep work for the *NEXT* Big Bang, but don't tell Ron that...

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 08:56 AM

OK

I want specifics.  What "view" of his has been disproven? 

Sagan doesn't know anything anymore, he's dead.

Which, by the way, disproves the old "no atheists in a foxhole theory".   Sagan didn't run to or cling to a fantasy when he was dying.

posted by Lingtaowoo on May 8, 2008 at 08:55 AM

I liked Carl when I was growing up...if anything that he taught us, was to think ' outside the box '...and we've have in many ways..


posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:54 AM

Grumpy    thanks for the space    I'll quit now    sorry about useing your blog to    as some will say     Preach

Ron

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:52 AM

Carl Sagan taught alot of his views when he was living  and many of his views have been dis proven    I bet he knows now the Truth

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 08:51 AM

Nothing HAD to be created, by intelligent design.  That's the whole point of this discussion.  

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:48 AM

Audrey   in the mind of us mortals your answer seems reasonable   but cold had to be created  Heat had to be created       that spark had to be created       that space for the spark had to be created

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 08:45 AM

I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being 

So does the ID crowd.  They just lie about it so they don't have to admit that in court.

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:44 AM

Maggie life and death   like I said black/white  night/day      they go together

What some believe of death is being final       &n bsp;   I ask if not final     what then for you and others that believe it

"am"  I trying to save you from a Hellous life after death     &nb sp;  NO       I'm just saying    wouldn't it be better for you if someone tells you different and they might be right  

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 08:39 AM

BTW Ron

Cold is an absence of  "electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other"

So is dark for that matter.

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:37 AM

Random I've never looked into ID     I have no idea what it teaches or says      but I have a better idea what Atheist and science teache in schools

I believe in Creation by a Surpeme Being

There has to be something       for something to start      I believe that something was a created place by a God of Creation

posted by Maggiepoo on May 8, 2008 at 08:37 AM

Allred, you mention "death" alot, reason?

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 08:34 AM

By the way, the *REASON* the earth is younger than the universe is a fascinating story, Ron.  Carl Sagan's books are a great way to read about it.

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:32 AM

Well 1st let me answer Witter       She writes does it really matter

Witter just like black and white      or day and night     How long is the life expecting of Man/Women      you are here for a very short period of time

But after your little travel though this life  and death comes and it comes to all of us    where are you then   on the opposite side of life 

I know some believe death is final and some believe   life is just starting     I happen to believe the latter

If you are right death is final     if you are wrong

Ron       &nbs p;         ;         and nice to talk to you again

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 08:26 AM

It matters a lot of some people, wp.  That's why they came up with the Intelligent Design flavor of creationism.

.

Ron, how old are you?  I'm younger than you are.  Shouldn't we be the same age?

.

To answer your question--no, space wasn't "here" before the Big Bang, nor time (probably--I'm not up on the membrane hypothesis which says they can go back before the singularity.)

.

Granted there has to be dirt before you can dig.  But where'd the *HOLE* come from?  Did it exist before you started digging?

posted by witterpitters on May 8, 2008 at 08:14 AM

Does it really matter HOW we came to be?  We are here, let's just make the best of it!!!!!!

posted by AudreyB on May 8, 2008 at 08:10 AM

Allred

You really should check out a book by Carl Sagan (Cosmos, or any book on astronomy) which explains how the universe was created.  It took billions of years for the residue of the big bang to coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. 

I've always felt that the magnitude of the big bang is much more majestic and awe inspiring than the dry,  unsatisfying tale of creation in the Bible. 

You may also want to look into a book titled "Your God is Too Small".  That says it all.

 

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 08:00 AM

posted by sojourner7 on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

This is a really easy answer Publican.  Because God is the great "I am".

Buff   God also said    There is no other God that I know of

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 07:58 AM

By the way most science believe the universe is 17 billion years old    but the earth is about 4/7 billion   How is that

The big Bang should have made every thing the same age      no you claim the earth 4 billion

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 07:51 AM

There has to be something to dig before you can dig

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 07:49 AM

Space before the Atheist Big Bang Theory    was it here 1st     or was it created after your big bang

Was a little piece of energy   floating around in a no space place     and by the way where did that piece of energy start

Fools that believe the big bang   are the same fools that have no faith in Creation=      Atheist

They give out a ridiculous theory    and call them selfs scientist

posted by randomfactor on May 8, 2008 at 07:45 AM

Ron, where was the hole before you started digging?   If man created money, where did debt come from?  (I know, the Republicans invented it.) 

Actually, there *WAS* no cold before the Universe existed.

posted by allRED on May 8, 2008 at 07:39 AM

Cold      opposite  of        ;    Heat        according to your Big Bang Theory     Heat      was created by electrons and protrons and Atoms and alot of little thingy's hitting each other

But COLD  where did it come from    what made space so cold between Galaxy     do we asume      cold was alway here

 

 

posted by Wayfarer on May 8, 2008 at 05:57 AM

Hey Possum;) 

posted by ChrissyL on May 8, 2008 at 01:47 AM

I went to a Catholic University.  Even in such a religious institution, my degree in biology was based on true science. Intelligent design has no footing in reality.  I don't understand the need of evangelicals to demand that their philosophy be accepted as a science.  When you define ID, you must be careful because you are attempting to define God.  Do we really wish to insist that people like Kent Hovind and CSE (Creation Science Evangelism) are defining God's power?  I don't.  I love God.  I worship and celebrate the Word because it fills me with unmeasurable joy and peace.  ID proponents need to see that promoting false science doesn't draw any believer closer to God and it drives unbelievers farther away. 

posted by Publican on May 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Sojourner...

Not an answer worth making.  It is as bad as the folowing answers:

"Because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the greater "I is".

"Because Thor is the greatest "I am that I am".

"Because Lemminkainen is the really good "I am".

I do not mean to be a punk here...  I really just do not get how you find that answer in any way adequate.  You can substitute nearly any entity with any properties as the subject of that sentence:  it asserts nothing more about the subject than "great" existence.  Tens of thousands have thought that Adrammalech, Byelobog, Batara-Kala, or Abeguwo had great existence.  Although no one has asserted that about Yahwesusllah besides myself and now...

"Because Yahwesusllah is the great "I am."

And none of them even exists, much less exists great.

posted by sojourner7 on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 PM

This is a really easy answer Publican.  Because God is the great "I am". 

posted by Publican on May 7, 2008 at 09:58 PM

See, I was perfectly willing to let BLT go his way, despite his obvious inability to address a basic issue about his religious beliefs.  Then Wayfarer jumped in with a typically silly response.  My use of "heart" had little to do with my main argument - it was largely play.  Wayfarere is typically just wrong that any part of my post is based on a mistranslation but both he and BLT make NO attempt to answer the main argument of my post.  

That is important and is on a par with someone serving on a jury who refuses to listen to argument or evidence and insists that the defendant is guilty because they dislike the color of their skin.  That argument is crystal clear to many atheists and the inability of the religious to attempt an adequate answer marks them as mainlining irrationality.  It is not an argument to ignore or put out of mind: if you can't answer it then you might as well believe that you are a 700-foot tall Pelican named Stella.  here, let me repeat it:

"You already know this.  Your heart has not received the TRUTH of:  Thor, Nepthys, Hotei, Olorun, Yarilo, Kwatee, Kinich-Ahau, Apocatequil, or even Huitzilopochtli.  And your heart has not been humbled for Huitzilopochtli even though Huitzilopochtli demanded many sacrifices of human hearts.  As many as 70,000 human heart sacrifices were performed by the Aztec to Huitzilopochtli...

Now, these are all deities actually worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  Anyone wishing to research these non-existent deities can start at Godchecker ( http://www.godchecker.com/g... ).  Your heart has not been humbled to the truth of thousands and thousands of Gods, BLT...  Why are you relying on your arrogant andprideful and stubborn mind to exclude them?

You are shutting out an even longer list of nonexistent Gods from your heart, though.  All of the above deities have been worshipped by from tens of thousands to millions of people.  There is an open-ended list of deities yet to be worshipped by anyone, including Pepsicoketab the secondary creator of tiny bubbles, Yahwesusllah the tripartite deity of fused monotheism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Well, that last one may be worshipped already.  The Pastafarians of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and their ubiquitous pirate-fish logo are the fastest growing church on Earth.  ( http://www.venganza.org/ ).  BLT, allow HIS noodly appendages into your aorta!!"

And RF provided the obvious conclusion:  we all have a very long list of thousands of Gods that we do not believe in - atheists just add one more to that list, the imaginary magical buddy you believe in. 

In long-form the argument is:  what evidence or reasons can you present for the existence of your God which is better than the evidence that you yourself find insufficient for the existence of the tens of thousands of Gods you don't believe in?

One more time, since BLT just pretended he didn't read the argument and Wayfarer tried to disappear it with some nonsense about mistranslation of "nous."  Answer the uniqueness argument or admit that you are part of the problem.

Wayfarer is just wrong about mistranslations.  Both the Old and New Testaments refer to the heart:  Lebab in the Hebrew and Kardios in the Greek.  The Greek word "nous" means "mind" not heart.  But don;t take either my or Wayfarer's word for it.  John Chryssavgis wrote at the beginning of chapter 3, Kardia, the Heart of his 2004 book John Climacus:

 "In the Old Testament, too, the term heart (leb, lebab) is normally used in an all-embracing sense.  It signifies not only the emotions, the feelings and affections, but also the spiritual center of the human person.  It is even the seat of thought and reason.  The New Testament reflects the Semitic rather than the Platonist approach.  After the incarnation, for example, Mary is said to have kept everything in her heart like a treasure.  Moreover, even thoughts arise from the heart which is seen as the moral center of the human person, the determinant of action.  Furthermore, as the inner person, the heart signifies the center of the spiritual life."

posted by Wayfarer on May 7, 2008 at 05:58 PM

The heart as used in scripture is a inadequate translation of the Greek word "Nous" which means the spiritual nature of man, the core of his being, the part of him that is the image of God, that is capable of speaking to God.  Sorry Publican ,but you based your entire long argument on your linguistic ignorance.  

posted by randomfactor on May 7, 2008 at 04:59 PM

These blog entries, in part, *ARE* my "sign."  

No, they don't speak for me, they just presume to. 

posted by blognroll on May 7, 2008 at 04:51 PM

Then I suggest making your own sign (like in the song, Signs).  Don't let anybody speak for you.  You've got your own voice. 

1 2

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement