Theism

[Cirdan]

If you did, for example, examine the question of whether stars could be considered a very slow life form, then you might think about new questions to investigate, such as how new stars are frmed, are new stars influenced in any way by their "parents" etc. I find such concepts quite useful.

Analogies are often useful and just as often taken beyond relevance.

It's only fairly tangible if you happen to be near a large mass. Not to mention we lack a quantum theory of gravity, and there are some interesting alternate theories such as radient pressure and inertial conservation that, while they are flawed, provide a framework for some very interesting questions that illuminate shortcomings in our current theories.

So the theories you use as examples as "postulated" that were so wonderful yet misunderstood (even though they had no relevance to ID) are tangible but now you find them flawed. Do you actually believe what you are writing or is it just a matter of how fast you can shovel it and how high you can pile it?

That's why, if you noticed, I said ID is a metaphysical postulation. However, the assertion that evolution is a means of calculating a result, is not. It can be proven, or disproven.

how convenient...

But discussing ID isn't an empirical discussion. The capability to prove or disprove design doesn't exist, and likely may neve exist.

again...

That however doesn't mean that you can't take a question formulated from a view of design, such as the possibility of a working evolutionary calculating device, and submit it to empirical tests.

or not.

Who said I wasn't intersted? Because I don't want to participate in useless blatherings about genesis based pseudo science predicated on perfection of forms? I'm surprised you want to discuss such a concept, since it's fairly stale, and has been beaten to death in numerous places. However I hve no objection to discussing the concept of design as it relates to process and function. Just save the anthropomorphic ammo for another person. For that matter though, if you are going to discuss process and function, why limit yourself to purely biological examples?

Well, if you are going to postulate that stars are "slow" organisms then it is completely relevant. If you are going to "postulate" ID then it is relevant. Who is blathering about genesis? I used an example of flawed metaphysical postulation versus empirical hypothesis because you tries to compare ID with gravity and tectonics. Apples and oranges was the point, but I guess you missed it. I think you must mean anthropocentric sine it not in the form of a human, but centered on human experience.

Yes, in other words, if evolution is a function observed in replicating processes, then once could expect it to be observed (to differing degrees) in all replicating processes. Why limit yourself to biological examples if you are going to talk ID, especially since it's a metaphysical concept. We ourselves are already designing artificial life matrixes, and for that matter, creating new life forms. It's built into the "rules" of the matrix.

Now when you start asking questions like why it's built into the matrix, then you are dealing with metaphysics. But answers dealing with the capabilities of evolutionary functions in different processes, i.e. what they can be used for, are empirical.

Crystalline forms of inorganic substances display the basic properties of form, replication, consistent response to environmental variations. Built into the rules of the matrix? Now that is anthropomorphizing. We haven't created new life forms, but merely tinkered a bit with existing structure. Rules are easy to make as we have seen. Exceptions are a bit more difficult. Why a crystal "twins" a reason may be discovered. When it or if it will approaches the infinite in parameters.

Can anything exist without properties? Doubtful. That matter obeys certain rules under some known circumstance may or may not fit a "matrix". At some point the matrix breaks down and a new matrix takes over. Some levels of existence are beyond human capacity to observe. Does that imply design? Only if we (now it's appropriate) anthropomorphize the behavior of matter, gravity, space, and time.

Asking "how" versus asking "why" is the difference between science and philosophy. Both are valid questions within the disciplines. They are not the same question. How the universe functions will not tell us why the universe functions. Whatever advances in science are made, they are made to the ends of understanding the "how". A philosophy can be based on science as a means of understanding existence. Adding the concept of intent into the equation pushes the discussion into the unknown and only begs to have more "ornamentation" of the designer's intent. At that point the discussion of theism is a disconnect with the starting point of scientific understanding.

I believe I quite clearly stated the profound implications for the human psyche if such a metaphysical assertation were somehow proven to be true.

Not clearly. But even so, how profound would it be to discover that things are just as they are for one reason versus another? I suspect not very since it is unlikely that any secret hidden message is going to appear to inform us as to what we should be doing differently. And since our little "dirt ball" is infinitely insignificant in the scope of the universe, the profundity of any actions or beliefs on our part are irrelevant in the sum of all things. The human psyche is not, as yet, a common collective. Once again, god(s) become the invention of man, anthropomorphizing what is not understood. In the end it paints itself into a corner where doubt can be cast in the darkness.


*Whack* Wiffmeister

I find it more commonly used in the broader sense, since there is a specific term for what you are refering to, monotheism. Why use the broader term, theism, to refer to something, when there is a specific term, monotheism?

So in your interpretation a theologian should change title to either monotheologian, polytheologian, or possibly deiologian? Where do you find it more commonly used in the general sense? Certainly not in the minds of billions of humans for with the term and the concept was invented. You may feel free to invent a form of theism that doesn't fall into the categories of monotheism, polytheism, or deism if you wish.

I always talk like a pompus smartass.

Cynically pedantic, but pompous? Never