sirmonty: It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't seem to always degrade into name calling and general mischaracterizations of each side. You know what they say: If you can't think of something nice to say about somebody........ (....then you are probably thinking of Hillary Clinton.)
It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't seem to always degrade into name calling and general mischaracterizations of each side. You know what they say: If you can't think of something nice to say about somebody........
(....then you are probably thinking of Hillary Clinton.)
Love it ...
Thedesolateone:I said nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is merely creationism with bells, depending on how it is interpreted. Deism I don't scorn, but theism I do. When infinite different things could have created the world, why believe in such a specific, unlikely thing. I don't care whether you're Christian or not - for me the position of default is going for the simplest view. Creationism/ID is not the simplest view.
I see, and are you taking this position because you have actually gone to primary sources and researched the idea as put out by its proponents, or are you just parroting the words of your great prophet, Dawkins (PBUH)? The simplest explanation is only right if it can actually explain the phenomenon in question; the simplest explanation for my existence is that I popped into being spontaneously. Alas, though this is simpler, my origin required a more complicated process to actually come about.
GilesStratton: Zach:Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves? From what I've seen the religious individuals around here are the minority. In fact I can barely think of any Christians on these forums.
Zach:Also I never see any Atheist/Agnostic Austrians around here. Do they just keep it to themselves?
From what I've seen the religious individuals around here are the minority. In fact I can barely think of any Christians on these forums.
Hello everyone.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat:Hello everyone.
You were one of the ones I had in mind. But other than you and few others I can't think of any.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:You were one of the ones I had in mind. But other than you and few others I can't think of any.
Greetings.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, I know. The point being that requiring the outside force to provide the framework is like ID.
laminustacitus:Its not
Knight_of_BAAWA:The aggregate of decisions by individuals about themselves creates a spontaneous framework, rather than imposed from on high.
Funny, I never knew that DNA made decisions.
As I said, some dead Austrian economist made a distinction between action and other behaviour that isn't purposeful, he has a book around here.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It is. In both cases, a designer/creator/sovereign is needed to hand it down or create the framework and each item with a purpose. The aggregate of decisions by individuals about themselves creates a spontaneous framework, rather than imposed from on high.
The designer could have easilly been entropy, but when one speaks of insentient matter, speaking of it as if it can act and make decisions is extremely unscientific and thus of no use in a discussion of evolution; its fine for metaphors and the like, but it is unsuited for analysis.
laminustacitus:The designer could have easilly been entropy
laminustacitus: but when one speaks of insentient matter, speaking of it as if it can act and make decisions is extremely unscientific and thus of no use in a discussion of evolution; its fine for metaphors and the like, but it is unsuited for analysis.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But is entropy intelligent? No.
Rust never sleeps.
my my, hey hey
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:It is. In both cases, a designer/creator/sovereign is needed to hand it down or create the framework and each item with a purpose. The aggregate of decisions by individuals about themselves creates a spontaneous framework, rather than imposed from on high. laminustacitus:The designer could have easilly been entropyBut is entropy intelligent? No.
But can entropy act like an intelligent designer at times: yes; after all, I never implied that it was.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Seems to me he was making a metaphorical analysis.
Then woe be upon him, metaphysics is dead.
GilesStratton:Funny, I never knew that DNA made decisions.
As I said, some dead Austrian talked about spontaneous order. He has a book around here.
Notice how I can turn your phrase back at you. Maybe you should rethink using it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:As I said, some dead Austrian talked about spontaneous order. He has a book around here.
Spontaneous order is referring to order created from the actions of self-interested sentient homines agentes, not inanimate matter; it has nothing to do with evolution.
laminustacitus: Spontaneous order is referring to order created from the actions of self-interested sentient homines agentes, not inanimate matter; it has nothing to do with evolution.
Absolutely, spontaneous order eludes to the phenomena of action (i.e. rational choice). I believe Hayek goes into this (action as a prerequisite), I'll have to check.
On a side note, I am also a Christian.
Christian creationist here. I've been lurking around here for about a year now. A lot of the members here seem to be culturally conservative, or at least neutral, even if they aren't actually Christians (assuming "cultural conservatism" is some acknowledgement of traditionally Christian norms and values). But yeah, few members are clearly professing Christians.
JCFolsom: Thedesolateone:I said nothing of the sort. Intelligent design is merely creationism with bells, depending on how it is interpreted. Deism I don't scorn, but theism I do. When infinite different things could have created the world, why believe in such a specific, unlikely thing. I don't care whether you're Christian or not - for me the position of default is going for the simplest view. Creationism/ID is not the simplest view. I see, and are you taking this position because you have actually gone to primary sources and researched the idea as put out by its proponents, or are you just parroting the words of your great prophet, Dawkins (PBUH)? The simplest explanation is only right if it can actually explain the phenomenon in question; the simplest explanation for my existence is that I popped into being spontaneously. Alas, though this is simpler, my origin required a more complicated process to actually come about.
Please, are you arguing that it makes more sense that something else popped into existence then created some stuff, then created you out of it, made you live, created the whole world, divinely revealed certain seemingly random things, intervened at seemingly random points, seeing as it set the events in their inevitable motion in the first place?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
According to whom? Newsflash: positivism is even more dead.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA:Funny, I never knew that strawmen were valid argumentation techniques. Guess you sure showed me!
You were wrong, I pointed it out, you claim what I said to be a strawmen. Surely, that's not the best you can do?
laminustacitus:Spontaneous order is referring to order created from the actions of self-interested sentient homines agentes, not inanimate matter; it has nothing to do with evolution.
GilesStratton:You were wrong, I pointed it out, you claim what I said to be a strawmen.
Knight_of_BAAWA:My my my, how you creationists just can't get over the fact that some things don't require an outside intelligent agent to create. Seriously, there are a lot of statists who think order comes from the government, and that's no different from believing all the order and design comes from an intelligent designer.
Except doesn't the spontaneous order in absentia of the state still require intelligent actors?
sirmonty:Except doesn't the spontaneous order in absentia of the state still require intelligent actors?
Not too pick on you again, sirmonty, but you put the question so succintly ... This is really just a general comment, seeing as I was the one who created this thread (and, thus, I am responsible for raising the entire evolution=libertarianism and creationism=totalitarianism-metaphor).
Just a quick remark:
We do have plenty of examples of spontaneous order without looking at either the evolution of organisms or economies. One would be the formation of stars - which is well-described in physics, stand up to everything else we postulate about the world, and does not require sentient components, nor supreme guidance. Unless one wants to push further back the question of guidance (i.e. "god created the laws of physics and blahblah", which is missing the point about ID entirely. That would be more like theistic evolution where god is not strictly required) then this is a perfectly valid example of order created from simple interacting parts.
Rytz: Not too pick on you again, sirmonty, but you put the question so succintly ... This is really just a general comment, seeing as I was the one who created this thread (and, thus, I am responsible for raising the entire evolution=libertarianism and creationism=totalitarianism-metaphor).
Don't worry about "picking" on me, I'm a big boy. I can wipe my own ass.
Just a quick remark: We do have plenty of examples of spontaneous order without looking at either the evolution of organisms or economies. One would be the formation of stars - which is well-described in physics, stand up to everything else we postulate about the world, and does not require sentient components, nor supreme guidance. Unless one wants to push further back the question of guidance (i.e. "god created the laws of physics and blahblah", which is missing the point about ID entirely. That would be more like theistic evolution where god is not strictly required) then this is a perfectly valid example of order created from simple interacting parts.
Ok that's great but I was just pointing out where his analogy itself is faulty (or at least not completely parallel, if you will).
Jon Irenicus: Then woe be upon him, metaphysics is dead. According to whom? Newsflash: positivism is even more dead.
What has metaphysics ever been correct about? When has metaphysics ever increased the sum of human knowledge. Sorry philosophers, but you cannot discover the nature of the universe.
Knight_of_BAAWA: My my my, how you creationists just can't get over the fact that some things don't require an outside intelligent agent to create. Seriously, there are a lot of statists who think order comes from the government, and that's no different from believing all the order and design comes from an intelligent designer.
My my my, how you creationists just can't get over the fact that some things don't require an outside intelligent agent to create. Seriously, there are a lot of statists who think order comes from the government, and that's no different from believing all the order and design comes from an intelligent designer.
My, my, how you athiests just can't get over the fact that science is secular and cannot reflect any religious outlook. Neither am I a creationist, nor do I put my religious preferance into my scientific knowledge of both cosmology and evolution. In fact, to pretend that there's a spantanous order in the universe that reflects the spantanous order of the markets is poetry that doesn't belong in a scientific analysis, and from a scientific persepective I strongly feel that entropy is the "designer" of the universe as it is.
laminustacitus:My, my, how you athiests just can't get over the fact that science is secular and cannot reflect any religious outlook.
Want to try again with some honesty?
Knight_of_BAAWA: sirmonty:Except doesn't the spontaneous order in absentia of the state still require intelligent actors?That's irrelevant to the analogy, though. That there is no overarching creator imposing the order from outside is what is relevant.
The existence of an overarching creator imposing order in the physical sciences is infalisfiable, and ergo impossible to truly know; ergo, that statement means absolutely nothing in the physical sciences.
laminustacitus:What has metaphysics ever been correct about?
laminustacitus:The existence of an overarching creator imposing order in the physical sciences is infalisfiable, and ergo impossible to truly know; ergo, that statement means absolutely nothing in the physical sciences.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:What has metaphysics ever been correct about?That, as Rand remarked, existence exists and only existence exists.
What is existence? Existence is not falsifiable therefore any propositions about true existence are useless, therefore it is all but inacessible to the human mind, it is only possible to speak of the world as it is. Again, metaphysics fails to contribute anything.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:The existence of an overarching creator imposing order in the physical sciences is infalisfiable, and ergo impossible to truly know; ergo, that statement means absolutely nothing in the physical sciences.Was there a point to your statement?
Yes, that every single statement that you've been making is pure philosophy and cannot bear scientific inquiry.
The law of identity and the law of contradiction are metaphysical postulates, without which no knowledge is even in principle possible. Most of the present philosophy of the mind is metaphysics. If you're not a philosopher, don't presume yourself in a position to stridently deny the existence of an entire branch of philosophy. How does one argue against existence, exactly? Solipsism? But even then you admit something exists...
Jon Irenicus:The law of identity and the law of contradiction are metaphysical postulates, without which no knowledge is even in principle possible.
Are both empirical statements about the world, that's no metaphysics.
Jon Irenicus: Most of the present philosophy of the mind is metaphysics
And if it cannot be backed up by scientific inquiry, since it is about the physical world, it is absolutely useless.
Jon Irenicus:If you're not a philosopher, don't presume yourself in a position to stridently deny the existence of an entire branch of philosophy.
Metaphysics has lead humanity down the wrong path of knowledge for over a mellenia, it is only since Newton's sucesses where Descartes failed that the chains of metaphysics have finally been cast off of the pursuit of knowledge. But I do not deny the fact that phiosophers can so often presume they can reason out what can never be reasoned by the limited power of the human mind.
Jon Irenicus:How does one argue against existence, exactly? Solipsism? But even then you admit something exists...
From a scientific point of view, I ackowledge the world as it is is without the assumption that it is the surpreme existence.
laminustacitus:What is existence?
If you think metaphysics has failed to contribute something there, you might want to understand it as a bulwark against the idiot multi-realmers.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Was there a point to your statement?
laminustacitus:Yes, that every single statement that you've been making is pure philosophy and cannot bear scientific inquiry.
Do you understand your category error now?
What do you think metaphysics is? Statements about the structure of the world. The law of contradiction (and the law of identity from which it derives) certainly are such claims, and certainly are not testable in any sense in which the word "empirical" is normally deployed. Any empirical proof presupposes them from the get go.
Knight_of_BAAWA:All that is.
An unfalsifiable statement and ergo only metaphysics and therefore garbage.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If you think metaphysics has failed to contribute something there, you might want to understand it as a bulwark against the idiot multi-realmers.
The theory of multiple universes is metaphysics. At least for physics, it is a theory that states the reason why quantum flucuations are undetectable in the macro scale is that the fluctuations bleed, excuse the loose terminology, into other universe and are therefore not seen in this one.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Let's scientifically enquire regarding 2 + 2 = 4.
Alright let us: mathematics is an a priori science ergo 2+2=4. You fail at realizing something being "scientific" depends on the intrinsic nature of the science itself.
Jon Irenicus:What do you think metaphysics is?
Metaphysics is a displine of the nature of the world that can only be supported on human reasons sans any empirical evidence. That is my definition.
Then out the window the law of contradiction goes, because it cannot be supported by empirical evidence itself.
Jon Irenicus:Then out the window the law of contradiction goes, because it cannot be supported by empirical evidence itself.
No, empirical experince supports the law principle of contradiction. A tree can only be a tree and not also a car. A house can only be a house and not also a flag pole. Your statement makes little sense.