Neil De Grasse Tyson-Anorak?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just when you thought it impossible to warm to Neil De Grasse Tyson any more (well done helping to revive the teleological argument) It turns out that he is a water tower enthusiast.

More power to your elbow Dr Tyson but expect those pesky train, elevator and Pylon enthusiasts to roll by shouting ''get a life!''.

[ippy]

Just when you thought it impossible to warm to Neil De Grasse Tyson any more (well done helping to revive the teleological argument) It turns out that he is a water tower enthusiast.

More power to your elbow Dr Tyson but expect those pesky train, elevator and Pylon enthusiasts to roll by shouting ''get a life!''.

I was doing some of my work for an outside firm and I spoke to one of their agents about the address I was supposed to be visiting, they were quite lengthy complicated directions, it was some time ago but I can remember the directions included a green garage door, when my working partner and I arrived outside of this house there was a 200 ft water tower at the end of the back garden, this wasn't mentioned by the agent.

Not exactly an addition to your post but I thought you might have found it as amusing as we did, one of life's little gem moments.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to note that NdGT did not of course "help to revive the teleological argument" at all as Vlad wrongly asserts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was doing some of my work for an outside firm and I spoke to one of their agents about the address I was supposed to be visiting, they were quite lengthy complicated directions, it was some time ago but I can remember the directions included a green garage door, when my working partner and I arrived outside of this house there was a 200 ft water tower at the end of the back garden, this wasn't mentioned by the agent.

Not exactly an addition to your post but I thought you might have found it as amusing as we did, one of life's little gem moments.

Regards ippy

Thanks Ippy that brought a smile to my face.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to note that NdGT did not of course "help to revive the teleological argument" at all as Vlad wrongly asserts.

The moment you suggest the universe might be simulated you immediateltly suggest the universe has a purpose I.e. Simulated. That is a teleological argument Hillside.......entertain us by trying to get out of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The moment you suggest the universe might be simulated you immediateltly suggest the universe has a purpose I.e. Simulated. That is a teleological argument Hillside.......entertain us by trying to get out of it.

Wrong again. Wiki:

“The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.”

NdGT didn’t base his argument on the "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" at all. All he actually said was: “Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.”

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again. Wiki:

“The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.”

NdGT didn’t base his argument on the "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" at all. All he actually said was: “Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.”

QED

Why the does he even suggest the term simulation?
The whole idea is derived from the ability to simulate universes. Tyson then precisely fulfils your definition.

It is a modern iteration of Paleys thinking.

[Stranger]

Good grief Vlad - still determined to make an arse of yourself about this!?

Why the does he even suggest the term simulation?

It's an extrapolation of our capabilities, nothing to do with "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

The whole idea is derived from the ability to simulate universes.

Yes - not on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

Tyson then precisely fulfils your definition.

No it doesn't because it's not based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

It is a modern iteration of Paleys thinking.

Obviously not because it isn't based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

What is it about an argument "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" that you're struggling with?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief Vlad - still determined to make an arse of yourself about this!?

It's an extrapolation of our capabilities, nothing to do with "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

Yes - not on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

No it doesn't because it's not based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

Obviously not because it isn't based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world".

What is it about an argument "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" that you're struggling with?

Our capabilities are natural. Universalsimulations are a feature of our universe. They are evolved.

This is teleology and you and thatHillside chap in denial of it.

A teleological argument is an argument from purpose. You damn yourself to this the moment you talk about simulation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why the does he even suggest the term simulation?
The whole idea is derived from the ability to simulate universes. Tyson then precisely fulfils your definition.

It is a modern iteration of Paleys thinking.

Stranger has beaten me to it. If NdGT had offered his conjecture "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world” you'd have had a point. He didn't though, so you don't.

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A teleological argument is an argument from purpose. You damn yourself to this the moment you talk about simulation.

Stop lying. There are various reasons for suggesting that an intelligent something could have had simulated a universe that we perceive. Provided none of them though rely on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" there's no teleology involved.

The only way you could bodge this would be to re-define "teleology" as meaning, "involving a purposive entity" or some such. You have form as long as your proverbial for attempting personal re-definitions of this kind, but that doesn't mean you can get away with it.   

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. There are various reasons for suggesting that an intelligent something could have had simulated a universe that we perceive. Provided none of them though rely on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" there's no teleology involved.

The only way you could bodge this would be to re-define "teleology" as meaning, "involving a purposive entity" or some such. You have form as long as your proverbial for attempting personal re-definitions of this kind, but that doesn't mean you can get away with it.   

QED

I don't need to bodge anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't need to bodge anything.

Yes you do. Trouble is though, you always get caught out when you try it. See above for the latest example.

[Harrowby Hall]

What a strange surname:  Tyson-Anorak

[bluehillside Retd.]

Harrowby,

What a strange surname:  Tyson-Anorak

Vlad "humour" (fnaa fnaa).

[Nearly Sane]

What a strange surname:  Tyson-Anorak

Believe he wanted to follow in Sagan-Geek's footsteps.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Believe he wanted to follow in Sagan-Geek's footsteps.

Or possibly those of Richard "Dork"ins such are the peaks of Vlad's near Wildean wit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you do. Trouble is though, you always get caught out when you try it. See above for the latest example.

No I don't.
You on the other hand need to demonstrate that suggesting an intelligent simulator is not an intelligent design argument and how Paleys watch analogy is not the Teleological argument.
Good luck

[Stranger]

Our capabilities are natural. Universalsimulations are a feature of our universe. They are evolved.

Vlad - do you actually think that a teleological argument being based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" - is one from our evolved ability to design things?

That's really quite funny. However, you really do need to read up on what the teleological is all about. The word 'natural' in the phrase "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" refers to natural in the 'not made by humans' sense of the word.

A teleological argument is an argument from purpose. You damn yourself to this the moment you talk about simulation.

It's an argument from being able to see (supposed) evidence of purpose/design in the non human made universe.

You on the other hand need to demonstrate that suggesting an intelligent simulator is not an intelligent design argument and how Paleys watch analogy is not the Teleological argument.

Paley's Watch is a teleological argument but not because of the design of the watch - because the watch is used as an analogy for design in the natural world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - do you actually think that a teleological argument being based on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" - is one from our evolved ability to design things?

That's really quite funny. However, you really do need to read up on what the teleological is all about. The word 'natural' in the phrase "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" refers to natural in the 'not made by humans' sense of the word.

It's an argument from being able to see (supposed) evidence of purpose/design in the non human made universe.

Paley's Watch is a teleological argument but not because of the design of the watch - because the watch is used as an analogy for design in the natural world.

Your understanding of the teleological argument has been mediated to you through Bluehillside...
Enough said.

[Stranger]

Your understanding of the teleological argument has been mediated to you through Bluehillside...

Drivel.

Read about it here: Teleological argument

[Gordon]

I don't need to bodge anything.

Yet you do so nonetheless: and so effortlessly too: almost without thinking!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I don't.
You on the other hand need to demonstrate that suggesting an intelligent simulator is not an intelligent design argument and how Paleys watch analogy is not the Teleological argument.
Good luck

I've already corrected you on your misunderstanding of the teleological argument. As you've just ignored that and repeated the same misunderstanding I don't see much point in doing it again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your understanding of the teleological argument has been mediated to you through Bluehillside...
Enough said.

Actually it's only been "mediated" by your favourite reference source Wiki that - once again - has blown up in your face.

Either address the problem you've given yourself (that NdGT's conjecture did not rely on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" at all as the teleological argument actually requires) or don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually it's only been "mediated" by your favourite reference source Wiki that - once again - has blown up in your face.

Either address the problem you've given yourself (that NdGT's conjecture did not rely on "perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world" at all as the teleological argument actually requires) or don't.

Dear old Hillside IMHO seems on a quest to buttress the manifold and manifest weak points of new atheism and scientism but only makes a strange wee carapace around the strange wee antitheist island which is religionethics.