Spirituality
25 Apr 19
28 Apr 19
@dj2becker saidThat is in no way answering my question.
Would the baboons require any intelligence to paint this masterpiece of yours?
28 Apr 19
@dj2becker saidIf you concede that any individual stroke of paint
Sure but to paint Mona Lisa requires some form of intelligent intervention and precision.
can be random then extrapolating that you must
concede that the Mona Lisa can be painted by chance.
There is no logical alternative.
The Mona Lisa does not require some
form of intelligent intervention and precision.
28 Apr 19
@dj2becker said1. You do not get to alter my questions.
The question should be can randomly placed paint on a canvass form the Mona Lisa masterpiece without intelligent intervention. You require intelligence just to make the paint so your analogy already fails at the first hurdle.
2. The analogy is not mine.
3. You fail.
@wolfgang59 saidHogwash
If you concede that any individual stroke of paint
can be random then extrapolating that you must
concede that the Mona Lisa can be painted by chance.
There is no logical alternative.
The Mona Lisa does not require some
form of intelligent intervention and precision.
28 Apr 19
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe how I missed it, I think the technical verbiage is brain-fart just missed it!
How did you miss the stuff I put in brackets?!
28 Apr 19
@wolfgang59 saidIn high school I did a still life of a human skeleton between two mirrors in pencil that was spot on. I brought it home when my very young step sister thought it needed a little ink pen action on it, it was a blue ink, and she didn’t stay between any lines. Actually I don’t think she was even concerned about the lines. Broke my heart but she was 4 and helping! 😉
I "wasn't there" when my daughter drew on the
wall but I assumed she had due to the evidence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@wolfgang59 saidThe fact remains that the Mona Lisa masterpiece DID require some form of intelligent intervention and precision from the master himself Leonardo da Vinci. That IS a logical alternative. In fact it is the most reasonable alternative based on actual non imaginary evidence.
If you concede that any individual stroke of paint
can be random then extrapolating that you must
concede that the Mona Lisa can be painted by chance.
There is no logical alternative.
The Mona Lisa does not require some
form of intelligent intervention and precision.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@wolfgang59 saidYour daughter used intelligence to draw on the wall no?
I "wasn't there" when my daughter drew on the
wall but I assumed she had due to the evidence.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Apr 19
@KellyJay
Okay, let's put 'the ultimate truth' in a dark room. We both stand outside of that room, due to our finite nature. We both might think we know what is inside the room, and can at least agree that whatever we 'think' or 'believe' resides inside will not in the slightest way affect what is actually in there. If the 'ultimate truth' is that the Christian God exists then that truth will remain unaffected by our discussions outside of the room. Similarly, if the 'ultimate truth' is that the Hindu gods exist or indeed that no God exists at all, then this truth too will be unaffected by our squabbles outside.
You have no grounds to disagree with the above. It is a reasonable statement of fact. Neither of us have peeped inside the room, we simply do not have access to the numbers to declare boldly that our 2+2 = 4.
28 Apr 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf you are told the truth and you say no, I know better, it most certainly is not that! From that point on are you responsible for your claims?
@KellyJay
Okay, let's put 'the ultimate truth' in a dark room. We both stand outside of that room, due to our finite nature. We both might think we know what is inside the room, and can at least agree that whatever we 'think' or 'believe' resides inside will not in the slightest way affect what is actually in there. If the 'ultimate truth' is that the Christian God ...[text shortened]... ped inside the room, we simply do not have access to the numbers to declare boldly that our 2+2 = 4.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Apr 19
@kellyjay saidI ask you politely to re-visit my post. Take your time with it. Its point is an important one.
If you are told the truth and you say no, I know better, it most certainly is not that! From that point on are you responsible for your claims?
28 Apr 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo is my question, I'll re-visit yours, you answer mine.
I ask you politely to re-visit my post. Take your time with it. Its point is an important one.
28 Apr 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe trouble with your dark room is that is it going to affect us in ways that are eternally meaningful, and can affect us in where we are standing at the moment. We cannot prove to each other what is inside of the room beyond a shadow of a doubt, but how many things in life are like that? You also don't know no one and nothing is affected or unaffected by our discussions, lives are turned upside down upon a hateful or loving word spoken at the right or wrong time, all the time.
@KellyJay
Okay, let's put 'the ultimate truth' in a dark room. We both stand outside of that room, due to our finite nature. We both might think we know what is inside the room, and can at least agree that whatever we 'think' or 'believe' resides inside will not in the slightest way affect what is actually in there. If the 'ultimate truth' is that the Christian God ...[text shortened]... ped inside the room, we simply do not have access to the numbers to declare boldly that our 2+2 = 4.
We can agree or disagree on any topic, the reasonableness of how that is done is going to be how we come together and looking at life and everything in and around it. We can try and see what makes the most sense, and be consistent in our assessments about it all. One set of rules or standards for one thing and another set for the other is never going to work.
For example, you suggesting we cannot know about the beginning, or even if there was one, is not how you have portrayed evolution and the fossil record in the past, there you were quite ready to accept something based upon who said, what, not looking at why it should be accepted or rejected even after I showed you holes in the conclusion.
Okay not a painting but a nice Swiss Watch my contention is this that that Swiss watch could not have assembled itself. Also noting out of all the little intricate parts of the Swiss watch if they are thrown into a paper bag and you shook the paper bag for a million years it still would not assemble itself. We see a car we don't assume that the car assembled itself we absolutely know that there was an intelligence behind it. Yet many assume the biological systems just came from complete randomness?
Manny