"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Tank]

...the myth that [the theory of evolution] is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

The ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

So these 800 scientists are a myth? are idiots? aren't reputable? C'mon. Dispute is dispute. And it's always the minority view that advances science. Always.

The Discovery Institute! Fuck the liars! Authors of the Wedge Document. You're citing those cunts! You must be off your head Gerry. Do you think I was born yesterday? What the fuck are you on?

[xSilverPhinx]

Mega facepalm.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Tank: We're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.
Gerry: So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say?
Tank: Because you're a liar and deceiver Gerry.

You're a curious creature, Chris. You claim you're an "ape with just enough brains to be dangerous," yet you write like a son of God who believes in an objective standard of morality that transcends all of us and to which all of us ought to submit; a standard which includes the command: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

[Tank]

Oh Gerry if you think numbers are important then have a look at Project Steve.

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]

I take your 800 and raise you 1,200 scientists, just the ones called Steve, who do uphold that the Theory of Evolution as scientifically valid. The other thing of note is that there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

So that's another huge fail on your part Gerry.

[Tank]

Tank: We're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.
Gerry: So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say?
Tank: Because you're a liar and deceiver Gerry.

You're a curious creature, Chris. You claim you're an "ape with just enough brains to be dangerous," yet you write like a son of God who believes in an objective standard of morality that transcends all of us and to which all of us ought to submit; a standard which includes the command: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Gerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars. As a creationist you must, by definition, endorse lying. So be the morality objective or subjective you Gerry are a deceiver. So get over your mythology, self-deceit and delusion. Oh and the 'quote mining' is another typical disingenuous creationist tactic. I would expect no better from you and you continue to prove me right and reinforce my already low opinion of your kind.

[Tank]

And Gerry here are details of the Wedge Strategy and the Wedge Document produced by them. Citing the Discovery Institute utterly destroyed any credibility you ever had.   

[xSilverPhinx]

Well Gerry, when defending belief in god you said that there are millions of people who believe so therefore it must be true. Why now are you saying that the minority view must be right this time?

[Asmodean]

...the myth that [the theory of evolution] is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

The ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

So these 800 scientists are a myth? are idiots? aren't reputable? C'mon. Dispute is dispute. And it's always the minority view that advances science. Always.

The Discovery Institute! Fuck the liars! Authors of the Wedge Document. You're citing those cunts! You must be off your head Gerry. Do you think I was born yesterday? What the fuck are you on?

Ha! And here The Asmo was, preparing to get all bluntly-rude. No need, apparently.  

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry, if you could see God...

Let me stop you there. If I could see God how? When a sphere is thrust into (or perhaps I should say, through) Flatland, Flatlanders perceive it first as (a) a small circle that has appeared out of nowhere; then (b) as a circle that grows bigger and bigger; then (c) as a circle that shrinks; and finally (d) as a circle that simply vanishes. What can such people really know about spheres? And with more complex three-dimensional objects, things get more confusing from their point of view: a hand, for example, may appear as a single oval (if only one fingertip is passing through), or as multiple disconnected ovals (if more than one finger is partially inserted), or as an oddly-shaped but connected whole that bears no resemblance to ovals at all (when the hand is inserted parallel to their country), etc. What can such people really ever know about hands? [By the way, I've found this analogy very helpful when considering Ezekiel's visions of God.]

Now let's look at your question again in this light:

If you could see [the teensy portion of God that can be reduced to dimensions that are within the grasp of your current faculties] wouldn't you intuitively think he was designed?

I might. More likely, I would think that what I could see of Him was unique; like nothing I had ever seen before: appearing out of nowhere, growing, shrinking, disappearing, taking on all kinds of connected and disconnected shapes in the process; completely unlike created objects, and utterly outside of my control.

Would you be correct?

Never entirely correct; I might get a glimpse of the truth or a helpful insight here or there, but the Subject is clearly far outside the range of my faculties; outside the whole of universe, in fact.

Another way of looking at the question is this: holy men and theologians typically describe God not a possessing attributes, but as being those things: God IS love, for example. So perhaps someday my faculties will be extended to where I can comprehend more of God and I will see then, not that God "appears to be designed" but rather that "God IS design". But I think holy men and theologians talk that way simply because they're reached the limits of our faculties (and thus our natural languages). "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..."

[Asmodean]

Let me stop you there. If I could see God how? When a sphere is thrust into (or perhaps I should say, through) Flatland, Flatlanders perceive it first as (a) a small circle that has appeared out of nowhere; then (b) as a circle that grows bigger and bigger; then (c) as a circle that shrinks; and finally (d) as a circle that simply vanishes.

No. They would observe a hole in their Flatland. If that land was elastic enough to indeed shrink back after the sphere's equator passed through, it would not be a huge effort for Flatlanders to determine exactly what kind of geometry has passed through their world.

What can such people really know about spheres?

In your example, as much as we can, excepting visual perception.

...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars.

I do not know that. From my dictionary: "Idiot, noun: A person of subnormal intelligence; liar, noun: a person who tells an untruth with the intent to deceive." I'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied. Evolutionary theory is clearly disputed by lots of intelligent, well-informed people.

And then there's "the rest of us". The 42% of Americans who (according to this recent poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx) believe in the creationist view of human origins. Are all of them idiots and liars as well? And what about the 31% that think the evolutionary process, without God's guiding hand, would not be up to the job? Idiots and liars again? That's almost three out of every four people!

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Let me stop you there. If I could see God how?

However God could be seen, that's how. It's a hypothetical.  Assume that you could, at one time, contemplate the full complexity of God. This is a thought experiment. Wouldn't you intuitively think that such complexity had been designed?  Of course you would!  God is more complex than the human brain or the guitar amp you built.  Your a priori presumption in your argument is that this level of complexity (amps and brains) requires a creator.  You would presume that something exponentially more complex would also require a creator. You can't apply a presumption to an amp or a brain and then not apply it when you get to God. Classic Christian theology says that God was not created - he is the uncreated creator.  If something as complex as God was not created, then neither is it necessary for anything else to be created.

If you want to believe in God, that's fine.  So do I.  But don't base your argument on a logic that cannot be substantiated.  Furthermore, to say that "God is Design" is coming pretty close to pantheism - it appears to equate God with the forces of the cosmos. 

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Well Gerry, when defending belief in god you said that there are millions of people who believe so therefore it must be true.

I did say that there are millions of people who believe, but I did not say "therefore it must be true". I said that ubiquitous belief needed to be accounted for, and that a blanket statement like "There's no proof of god so I win," didn't quite do the job.

Why now are you saying that the minority view must be right this time?

You need to read more carefully. I said that scientific advances are always the result of the minority view because, by definition, scientific advances address either (a) current majority thinking that is in error, or (b) new areas of research that haven't yet been addressed by the majority. That's different, of course, than saying that any and every minority view will prove to be true.

In general I believe that sometimes the majority are right, sometimes they're wrong.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

Seems to me it's a given that the God who, "in the beginning [of time] created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]," would be outside of that particular time-space-matter configuration.