Thomas Jefferson on Intelligent Design.

[Sigh]So what if Jefferson did say:

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.

(source)

? Did he have at his disposal the findings of Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc? The site I linked ends:

If more people knew about Jefferson's real views on intelligent design, they might not be so quick to accept bogus claims that it is simply repackaged theology.

"bogus claims"? Right. The argument presented is a fallacious appeal to authority, Jefferson didn't have any views on the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because he died before it was invented.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

snip

The argument presented is a fallacious appeal to authority, Jefferson didn't have any views on the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because he died before it was invented.

That's got my nomination for the comment of the year. Nice one Bobby!

---

Thomas Jefferson on Intelligent Design.

[Sigh]So what if Jefferson did say:

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.

(source)

? Did he have at his disposal the findings of Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc? The site I linked ends:

If more people knew about Jefferson's real views on intelligent design, they might not be so quick to accept bogus claims that it is simply repackaged theology.

"bogus claims"? Right. The argument presented is a fallacious appeal to authority, Jefferson didn't have any views on the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because he died before it was invented.

Yes, of course, Jefferson could not have ever have read the Ancient philosophers; including Plato and Aristotle who adovcated early forms of intelligent design theory. Nor could this have been a follow up by the Watchmaker analogy.

Nor can you lump my master Dr. Einstein who was a believer in Intelligent Design with Darwin, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc, etc, etc...

As expected, know nothing of history and your damned to repeat it...

Bobby, looks like you are amongst the ill-informed here as you don't understand ID's *interpretation* of history, or perhaps you understand what ID purports as 'history' to be his *opinion*, absolute and concrete as always.

Now the lad is implying that Aristotle and Plato started the ID trend. Good to know, I thought ID was a monotheist, guess not.

Bobby, looks like you are amongst the ill-informed here as you don't understand ID's *interpretation* of history, or perhaps you understand what ID purports as 'history' to be his *opinion*, absolute and concrete as always.

Now the lad is implying that Aristotle and Plato started the ID trend. Good to know, I thought ID was a monotheist, guess not.

I always thought ID was Identification for when the coppers pulled you over.. :)

---

"bogus claims"? Right. The argument presented is a fallacious appeal to authority, Jefferson didn't have any views on the Intelligent Design Hypothesis, because he died before it was invented.

Yes, of course, Jefferson could not have ever have read the Ancient philosophers; including Plato and Aristotle who adovcated early forms of intelligent design theory. Nor could this have been a follow up by the Watchmaker analogy.

Nor can you lump my master Dr. Einstein who was a believer in Intelligent Design with Darwin, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc, etc, etc...

As expected, know nothing of history and your damned to repeat it...

Another straw man? That the podcast and the article I quoted from seek to conflate 17th century and earlier ideas of "design" with the more modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis does not mean that I will fall for it.

Still holding on to the your faith that Einstein was a fellow traveler? This is the man that said:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

How's the Spinoza reading going?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Spinoza reading is going well.

I also liked page 45 of the book you just posted.

Unshaken, just stirred.

Spinoza reading is going well.

I also liked page 45 of the book you just posted.

Unshaken, just stirred.

It is not good when one's daily bread is tied to God's special blessing.

Does not appear to be an enthusiastic endorsement of the Lord's Prayer.

Anything about Spinoza's God that you recognize in your own?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Spinoza reading is going well.

I also liked page 45 of the book you just posted.

Unshaken, just stirred.

It is not good when one's daily bread is tied to God's special blessing.

Does not appear to be an enthusiastic endorsement of the Lord's Prayer.

Anything about Spinoza's God that you recognize in your own?

My mater believed in a God. Why does this fact need to fit lockstrp into my belief in a God?

I think you fail to see the forest for the view of just one tree.

As I said my master also believed in a Design in nature.

My master was also a Jewish man. I do not hold this against him anymore then his rejection of that for his belief in Spinoza's God.

Unshaken, just stirred.

Is God good? Can God do bad?

---

Is God good? Can God do bad?

Why do you ask?

Oh, mention the Church and you can not believe in a God at all.

Is God good? Can God do bad?

Why do you ask?

Non responsive.

If we are to talk about God, don't you think it would be a good idea to define God?

---

Is God good? Can God do bad?

Why do you ask?

Non responsive.

If we are to talk about God, don't you think it would be a good idea to define God?

Asking a question is hardly non responsive. There is a reason for my asking. Just like there is a reason for your question.

I have aready started to define God. I have been doing that since I got here.

The Creator...

Stands outside of our linear timeline...

Have you been paying attention or not? I have. I have been paying attention to all of you, in your answers. In what you all know and in what you all don't know. In what you say and don't say. In how you argue and don't argue, and who you argue with and don't argue with.

But, by all means you go right ahead, define God.

As you already know, most people here are non-believers. A few are believers in God.

So please define space and time to me. Explain existence.

Explain the big bang, time and space, including space curvature / warping and the possible reason for such events to be happening at all.

What is the difference (if any) between randomness (chaos) or coincidence?

Jesus (really, Jesus Christ) was supposed to be wandering here on Earth some 2,000 years ago. When he was left to hang on the cross when he was crucified, we still know that he asked his Father why he had left him.

How, or in which way are we supposed to be knowing about such a fact. Another speculative myth, perhaps, or has history been told or explained to us in an expert manner?

If you are not a believer, you are not be supposed to be believing in Jesus Christ either.

As you already know, most people here are non-believers. A few are believers in God.

So please define space and time to me. Explain existence.

Explain the big bang, time and space, including space curvature / warping and the possible reason for such events to be happening at all.

What is the difference (if any) between randomness (chaos) or coincidence?

Jesus (really, Jesus Christ) was supposed to be wandering here on Earth some 2,000 years ago. When he was left to hang on the cross when he was crucified, we still know that he asked his Father why he had left him.

How, or in which way are we supposed to be knowing about such a fact. Another speculative myth, perhaps, or has history been told or explained to us in an expert manner?

If you are not a believer, you are not be supposed to be believing in Jesus Christ either.

You asked two questions.

1st, no difference.

2nd, I can't answer that one. I have no idea of the context or content you have asked it in, no subject that I can see in it either.

Please try again.

Well, I.D. I guess I may give it another try.

Science is best explained by means of mathematics and physics, because both of these subjects relate to science itself.

If you feel lost, think you have committed a sin and possibly would wish for forgivness, you visit the church in order to be forgiven.

More often, people visit the church in order to worship their religion as well as practice their faith in God.

Most of the time the church is not supposed to punish or penalize you for the sins you possibly may have committed.

Though it is still known to have happen in the past (Giordano Bruno vs. the Catholic Church).

Really, the Catholic Church stands out today with its white uniforms and pure and "pristine" ceremonies.

The only thing I really do not like with the Catholic Church is the point or "seance" where people attending the ceremonies are supposed to be drinking from a cup (not vine, perhaps only water). I guess this process in its context is meant as being a cleaning or purification for the sins possibly having been committed.

My guess is that some people who are preaching in the Church also are having a general understanding of science.

Typically, they do not attempt to throw away science as being meaningless or out of context, they rather look at science from a point of belief (call it religious belief).

But in the end, priests (or anything similar) are not scientists and have no way at explaining the functional characteristics and behavior of neither black holes nor time by means of their knowledge as being priests (or believers).

This does not imply that believers can not be good scientists, but that certainly does not go well with most of you.

I have aready started to define God. I have been doing that since I got here.

The Creator...

Stands outside of our linear timeline...

So your definition is complete now? Just two factors.

Elsewhere I could have sworn you had some other things to say were defining characteristics of God.

---

I think that when humans try to define God, they inevitably end up on very shaky theological ground.