All Blog Comments

AndrewFinden - The Psychology of Everyday Things

AndrewFinden — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:36:38 +0000

So only those things that are unintelligible are not designed?

Are you trying to avoid answering my question? Why is it irrational to conclude rational intelligence is behind rational intelligibility?

We have a process which can give the illusion of design. See above.

Biology maybe. For maths and physics? I'm yet to see it.

askegg - The Psychology of Everyday Things

askegg — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:28:38 +0000

Have we seen any such advantageous random 'error' in human DNA?

Yes. Lactose tolerance and sickle cell resistance to malaria are great examples.

I'm simply asking why you think it's irrational to conclude some rational intelligence to be behind rational intelligibility?

So only those things that are unintelligible are not designed?

Why code and information is more likely to be purely unguided rather than programmed?

We have a process which can give the illusion of design. See above.

AndrewFinden - The Psychology of Everyday Things

AndrewFinden — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:14:49 +0000

I think you're still creating a false dichotomy that we must either observe it and can thus 'know' or we simply cannot say anything. I think it is quite rational to draw conclusions - ones that we might not be able to be 100% certain about, but that are reasonable. So in the sense of the maths and physics of the universe - you're right, we didn't see it get designed (though we see other kinds of laws, codes and information being designed all the time) but then, I think, it comes down to which explanation best accounts for it: that it is just a lucky, unguided happening, or that such order and rational intelligibility has some rational intelligence behind it. You argued with the Pyramids that we don't see such order in nature (though what if the pyramids are that example?), so even though we didn't see the design process we can rationally conclude it - and I think the same is true of information.

askegg - 2.8 - Kalam is Krap

askegg — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:13:04 +0000

You are correct - "pantheon" is the correct word.

AndrewFinden - The Psychology of Everyday Things

AndrewFinden — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:07:29 +0000

FWIW Have we seen any such advantageous random 'error' in human DNA? (you still seem to have the impression that I'm arguing against Evolution and arguing the ID[tm] line - (evolution doesn't preclude intelligent design, (note the lack of capitals!!) I've already said that I'm simply asking why you think it's irrational to conclude some rational intelligence to be behind rational intelligibility? Why code and information is more likely to be purely unguided rather than programmed?

askegg - The Psychology of Everyday Things

askegg — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:06:44 +0000

Careful here. The original post is regarding the intentional design of artefacts in our world and drawing the analogy to the fundamental laws of the universal. You seem to be suggesting the mathematics which describes the working of the universe are designed to be so, yet we have no evidence of this design process. I understand many think the very fact there are such laws means there is a law maker, and that is the exact point I am referencing here. We can deductively conclude design where we can witness the design process in action and its results. How did god create the universe? What from? How did he derive these fundamental laws? Where are the other universe at various stages of construction? Etc. Good luck with those questions.

askegg - The Psychology of Everyday Things

askegg — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:59:39 +0000

"Errors" that convey an advantage to the organism containing them have a higher probability of surviving and propagating. Given sufficient successive build up of such "errors" replicating organism can give the impression of design. So in what way can you say these are "not the standard code"?

AndrewFinden - The Psychology of Everyday Things

AndrewFinden — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:54:41 +0000

Nice try. Still a tautology. If we are observing order, it is because it is there to be observed - an evidential basis, as you say - but that doesn't account for why such order should be there in the first place, it merely recognises that it is. If 'consistent interaction of energy and matter' is not order, then what is? If that is the evidence of order, then you are very much creating a tautology, effectively saying "there is order, because there is order". You can't get out of that by pretending I'm the one making the value judgement you've already made.

AndrewFinden - The Psychology of Everyday Things

AndrewFinden — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:50:35 +0000

Then there's all the defects that cause lifelong genetic physical/mental problems

They are deviations and 'errors', not the standard code, though, right?

askegg - 2.2 - The Return of Jim

askegg — Tue, 7 Sep 2010 06:37:37 +0000

Valid. Many people seem to forget what the "U" in "UFO" stands for.

Anonymous Atheist - 2.2 - The Return of Jim

Anonymous Atheist — Mon, 6 Sep 2010 05:01:56 +0000

Regarding lights in the sky, a possibility even if you don't otherwise see planes or helicopters in the area, is a medical/rescue helicopter. They fly when and where you wouldn't normally see flights.

Anonymous Atheist - 2.2 - The Return of Jim

Anonymous Atheist — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:02:24 +0000

And then Lot suggests that instead of having sex with the angels, they can have sex with his own young daughters!

Anonymous Atheist - 2.1 - AronRa

Anonymous Atheist — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 19:11:03 +0000

To potentially get on the radio, what you want is a community broadcasting radio station... called public access in the US, that is what the Atheist Experience / Non-Prophets group uses to get on the TV/radio. http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/c... http://www.cbonline.org.au/index.cfm?pageId=13,10... http://www.cbaa.org.au/Who_We_Are/Tasmania-Member... If you do inquire about doing a show on those radio stations, tell them this (loaded with key terms they like): "The show covers underrepresented issues, expands the diversity of viewpoints available to the public, and would serve the 25% who are nonreligious in the diverse Australian community."

Anonymous Atheist - 2.1 - AronRa

Anonymous Atheist — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 18:21:35 +0000

AronRa is so cool! 8) Emus are hilarious. As I recall from months ago, the amazingly round sinkhole was caused by a poorly-designed/maintained underground sewage/drainage/retention system eroding the ground around it and caving in. So it is due to the manmade component that it ends up looking unnatural. There are a number of these sinkholes in the area as things keep failing in more spots, and the residents are very worried about them as more appear.

David Gibson - The Psychology of Everyday Things

David Gibson — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:50:58 +0000

No it wasn't a tautology. I said we observe order due to consistent interactions of energy and matter. You are creating the tautology by applying our value judgement of order twice, when there is only an evidenciary basis to do so once.

Anonymous Atheist - 1.10 - Insane Star Trek Kitty Edition

Anonymous Atheist — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:36:32 +0000

The later Ori storyline on Stargate SG1 was such a great analogy to religions like Christianity & Islam, on top of the earlier Goald ancient religion masquerade theme. I hope it helped get many people to question their beliefs, although it may have had a more subtle effect for most people whose compartmentalization defenses seem to have managed to avoid consciously being aware of the analogy.

askegg - The Psychology of Everyday Things

askegg — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 08:07:22 +0000

That's sweet, but useless. It translates to "never mind the horrendous hell you might be going through, things will somehow get better if you magically think about it". No - things only get better when people *DO* something.

askegg - The Psychology of Everyday Things

askegg — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 08:04:58 +0000

The defects and distortions we see in genetics and the system of life, I believe is due to the fallen nature of the world.

Remind me again - According to your theology, who cursed the first created humans and all their decedents for all time and brought about this "fallen world" because a women symbolically chose knowledge over blind ignorance and fear?

Sin entered in to a perfect environment free from such problems/conditions and rendered it defiled.

It was not perfect. God created us with an inquisitive mind and a thirst for knowledge. When he placed the two trees in the garden what did he think was going to happen?

askegg - 1.9 - On the workbench

askegg — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 05:12:17 +0000

Add http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ to the list.

Anonymous Atheist - 1.7 - We Have Earned Our Explicit Rating

Anonymous Atheist — Sun, 5 Sep 2010 02:36:03 +0000

Great, thanks! I've complained about that on several other podcasts' episodes recently, and they weren't as quick to respond. The extra features the m4a format can do are cool, but good old mp3s ensure universal accessibility. :)