The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Offline There has never been anykind of universal consensus on this subject.
True. There has also never been universal consensus that the Earth is spherical or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There have always been a few religious types that have clung to the old idea despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Second, you only believe in the old earth theory because there's an agenda to teach it in the public school system.
Yes, that agenda is called "science". It is based on evidence, not 2000-year-old ideas some men put in a book.
Third, even if the world IS billions of years old, this doesn't threaten Christianity! lol
Then why even fight this battle against basic science? Your claim that there is no evidence is only evidence that you have not looked at the evidence.
We never officially stated that the world was young.
Who is "we"? Many Christians explicitly state that the world is over 4 billion years old. Others explicitly claim that it is 6000 years old. Still others support which ever position support the theistic argument that they are making at the moment.
My point is that we are open to the idea of an old world, if scientific evidence can be produced to convince us.
Apparently no evidence will ever be enough. What evidence would convince you?
If you go to the Institution for Creation Research (ICR.org), they have an extensive list of scientists (biologists, geologists, astrophycists) who believe in a young earth.
I see no science on that site. Only anti-science. "Scientists don't know this and they don't know that." or "Proving evolution is not as easy as proving that 2+2=4".
Is there a single non-theistic scientist who believes in a young earth?
- Login to post comments
Offline Veils of Maya wrote:How do bacteria live? How about simpler organisms like worms? How does a baby know to nurse when it has no practical experience? By instinct. Given an ape with only instinct and an ape with instinct and superior intelligence, it's obvious who will come up on top. The smarter apes will learn to make better use of the surrounding resources. They can ward off attacks of apes with lesser intelligence. This gives them a huge advantage that tips the scales in their favor. Those who do not share these traits will be out hunted, out gathered and find themselves in short supply. As such, they cannot no longer compete with their more intelligent brethren and either die of starvation or simply do not reproduce as often. Eventually the less intellegent apes will die off.
why would the apes that are smarter not just live with the ones that are not so smart? what law causes them to "outgather" the other ones, their are many symbiotic relationships(that is ones that coexist together) in our natural enviroment, whats makes other species die off?
When playing sports, potential team mates are picked by their skill level in the game. Those with the least skills may be picked last or not even picked at all. The same holds for natural selection and apes. Dominate males mate with the most females. Weaker males are kept at a distance. The DNA of the dominate male will be replicated where the weaker male's will not. Once an entire tribe reproduces with a beneficial trait, it will be able to out compete with other tribes. They will either move away, be attacked and killed or be unable to compete with the other tribes for resources.
it is not becasue they have better instincts or the whole world would be full of oranisms that have evolved past their previous incarnations, but this is false as we still have the most basic bacteria still existing today, why has it not evolved over time like everything else as you insist is what happens? why are their still basic lifeforms that existed millions of years ago? should it not have evolved also?
Organisms that evolve often move into environments that they could not exist in before. An example is the evolution of fish into reptiles. Those fish that evolved to walk on land physically moved away from other fish in the water. They did not breed. They evolved to consume other kinds of food with did not compete with their non-evolved counterparts. As such fish still exist.
The same concept works for bacteria and other simpler life forms.
It's estimated that over 95% of life that lived on the earth has become exisintc. These species either could not adapt or were absorbed into a new "species"
why have the less inteligent links to us died off yet? will their eventually be no more apes becasue they are dumb? why do apes still exist?
Do you compete with apes for food? Do you compete with apes for breeding rights? No. As such apes continue to live and compete against each other, not humans. When tribes moved due to various physical and evolutionary factors, they created separate branches of evolution in separate geographic regions. Continents shifted and split. The less evolved versions of Man and apes became extinct.
yuor inferences do not lead to any conclusion that makes sense, sorry.
If any conclusion is lacking sense, it's the claim that God created all creatures in final form.
If God created all creatures to live in peace in the garden of Eden *before* the fall of man, why are tigers so well equipped to hunt? Why would they need claws and big teeth to eat grass? What need would these variations serve?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline
If God created all creatures to live in peace in the garden of Eden *before* the fall of man, why are tigers so well equipped to hunt? Why would they need claws and big teeth to eat grass? What need would these variations serve?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thiest1
I can easily show you the rock making factory, and indeed to have a rock you need a rock making factory, its called a universe, the universe is a factory which function is to create, it has a single set of numbers much like an equation and also the same variables are acting upon the set at all times, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, and as far as we know the laws of the universe do not change, if you have a singularity like so{1} and you apply a function to the singularity and the function would be the universal laws which we can call 1x+y then each time that the equation is worked out, say the big bang, the outcome will be the same. so yes, the function of the universe is to create these forms, they have shown in physics and also even quantum mechanics, correct me if i am wrong, that things are deterministic when under the laws of physics. So yes if you have a rock, you need a rock maker, if you have a mountain you need a mountain maker, its called the function of the universe.
All you are doing here is asserting your need for a singularity to intelligence relationship, one that does not have to be forced into this equation at all. In fact adding an intelligent “purpose” to the universe by calling it a factory implies an agenda to the universe that isn’t necessary. All that has to be established is that there is a causal link between the universe and our planet having rocks as a direct result of our sun coming into being, not to mention numerous geological forces. Any motives, intellect, or “purpose” in this process is pure speculation with no teeth in cosmological terms and certainly not when we look at all the natural reasons that rocks become rocks.
With a real factory you can point to location, machinery, workers, etc. Where are all these things in the universe? In what way do the top managers communicate with other “entities” to get the job done? Tell you what, I’ll settle for the foreman of the rock division for earth. Can you get him/she/it to answer a few questions on this board? No? Oh yeah, he’s just a figment of your imagination as well. So what we have here is you renaming the universe a factory and then hiring a god to run it.
How quaint… and sophomoric.
I’ll take this in parts:
of course i didnt walk up to the stone and just "know it" i had to reason it out using my mind, with the question of existance you can ot use just plain reasoning, it is going to be abstract, are you saying that abstract human reasoning is useless or unreasonable?
Just as i knew all the things about the stone from information already possesed by me, the fact that my reasoning leads to design elements within the human organism is no less reasonable than saying the stone was worked on by erosion, i have put forth the theory that the human body has a forethought design and i have obtained it through human reasoning, you on the otherhand just say, no it wasnt designed, please explain to me why the human body was not designed by the universe factory, casue as i noted the set {1} will nevar change
…and the laws will nevar change so obviously one of the funstions of the universe is to create human beings. abstract human reasoning will lead you to believe that under the function of the universe to create living beings that their must be intent, which we all know what happens when we label the universe factory with intent.
Which laws do you have in mind specifically?
If this is so obvious a function as you say, why are we the only humans to be seen for billions of light years? And if this factory analogy of yours really holds, can you explain to me the profit margin it must have in wasting so much matter and energy to create humans that comparatively speaking live on a planet that isn’t even a tenth of a millionth of one speck of dust under your shoe when looking at all the other huge things that are out there in the universe relative to us?
What kind of factory runs like this? The only one I can think of exists in the abstract corners of your mind.
Here’s an idea. Since the speck of us is so small and thus so ridiculously insignificant in space and time, could it be that we are in fact just the right mix for life to happen in what appears to be a vast universe that is not a factory with an agenda and a production protocol? I mean seriously. If there is an intelligent being behind this creation of us, he’s pretty much an oxymoron.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline im putting forth a theory based upon what i have observed in the universe, im not creating anything, i am pointing out that the forms that the universe has "created" indeed reasonably will need to have some sort of pre programming in order for them to be formed when you have only 1 set of variables being acted upon by the same function.
What are the one set of variables specifically? Since you’ve observed these things or their products, would you mind showing us this preprogramming from your perspective in Kelly’s terms—that would be directly or indirectly?
im saying that human reason leads to believe that the function and variables intent was to create living beings, just as the function and intent of a shoe making factory would be to make shoes.
Um… You’re missing a piece of the puzzle there, Theist1. Shoe factories don’t themselves have a brain and controllable appendages. That being the case, a shoe factory can’t 1) have intent and 2) act upon it. Could it be that you are leaving something out? Oh yeah, the great CEO in the sky…dog.
You seem more and more the polytheist, which is at least a better place of delusion than some others on this board.
i dont understand what this has to do with the argument for does god exist, i nevar said the creator wants us to worship him or that he has changed, if God is real he most likely is not going to change at the whims of the forms he has made, i dont get where yer going.
I didn’t mean to imply that I knew better than you what a non-existent god thinks, wants or feels. I’m reasonably sure his non-existence precludes me from doing that. At he same time, I don’t see how you could know what this non-existent god is swayed by. Perhaps our whims are what he likes to get whipped with, perhaps with a red chew ball in his mouth, ala Pulp Fiction?
We will never know, will we?
i dont understand how logical reasoning leads to some sort of emotional inner peace as you are infering, yahweh? when did i state i was a jew or a christian? and what is the damning evidence that you have to support that God does not exist, please lets hear the "damning evidence", ill expect it in your next post.
The most damning evidence is that it’s a logical fallacy to ask me to do that. The asker loses all integrity when he asks for one to do this. I’d also point to the fact that no negative can be proven so all negatives are true so to speak. Any statement that proves everything proves nothing.
This just in!Santa found! He’s Water!Santa’s house is found, or actually he himself in the shape of a house that he lives in was found because… see…Santa is both the house and a man of water… see…never mind… A man participating in the Iditarod in upper Alaska stumbled across a large hut of some sort made of ice. He went inside and found a document which was comprised of text etched into the hide of a seal.
The document proclaims that Santa is in fact snow, or more accurately, water. The document reads as follows:
And the heavens above the earth parted and Aquavita the mother of all set her last beloved son upon the third orb which was dry and barren. She dropped him off after having dropped off her other children at the rocky one far far out, the one with cool rings of light, the siter of the third planet, and the red one. She said unto him “be all that quench-eth the animals of this orb. Be their nourishment and their seaway, be the coolness of the cold times and the mist of the hottest of the hots. Be all these things and more. When the animals evolve from your liquidness, wait for the brightest of the bright of them to make his own traditions about what god is. He’ll think it afar not knowing the truth. That does not matter. We are not jealous gods. When the time is right, allow your icy self to transform into a large bearded being resembling the smart ones. Be sure to dress in red and bring them gifts, all of which are really products of the great universe factory on discount. Then re-liquefy and then freeze again until the next year. In this way they will know of love and in this way we can help them.
The discovery is remarkable though there are many who doubt this text’s veracity.
One critic noted: “The text is in English man! How the hell is that possible?”
To that a believer stepped forward from a bearded crimson crowd; he was also dressed in red. Using logic only contemporary media in the US could appreciate he asked the eternal question:
“Can you prove Santa isn’t really water?”
To that the crowd erupted and then threw snowballs at the first man.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline How does which posts I choose to respond have anything to do with answering the question I posed?
When you claim that God exists and played a role in our creation, you imply that God has a purpose. In fact, the mere existence of God would imply he has some purpose, even if we couldn't comprehend it. If purpose equates design and God has a purpose, then your reasoning implies that God needs a designer. So who is this designer?
im not claiming anything, i am theorizing, if i was claiming God exists i would say, God exists, but i am not, i am giving opinions on the subject of God existing, and i am wondering does anyone else follow maya's train of thought here? casue it sounds like billy madison trying to answer a economics question, makes no sense, you are obviously to smart for me, so please ask me the question in a simple manner, i do not see how yer senteces before "so who is the designer" even remotely infer to that question, please ask plainly.
and to yer other post maya about evolution, what is the point? you explained to me a way that some species might die off, evolution is a non-random proccess that is an inherant function of the universe, so it is included in my theory for Gods existance, what are you trying to say with the observation?
- Login to post comments
Offline With a real factory you can point to location, machinery, workers, etc. Where are all these things in the universe?
location is space-time, machinery is all the forces and laws of the universe such as gravity and matter and energy, the worker is time.
Lets look at the anology again, ok so the universe has a function as you can agree with me, it forms everything around us, much like a shoe factory forms shoes, now why can I not reason that if the shoe factory took a designer to set it up and make shoes, why can I not use a logical inference to assign a designer to a universe when it creates forms much more complex than a shoe, especially when the universe is non-random and always abides by the same rules, much like a shoe factory is in its paremeters to make shoes.
and if i can logically infer design to the universe, why can i not infer inteligence onto design? and from infering inteligence, i can infer awareness.
In fact adding an intelligent “purpose” to the universe by calling it a factory implies an agenda to the universe that isn’t necessary
what is neccassary in your opinion then? should i not use my logic to make inferences about my surroundings? like i said i am making logical inferences, show me where my logic fails.
tell me why the shoe factory required a designer but the universe did not? explain it.
Which laws do you have in mind specifically?
gravity, the 4 fundemental forces, the laws of motion, the speed of light.
these variables in my universe factory are the same things that are modling the shoes, you need to have each one set perfectly to mold the shoe, just like these perameters mold the human form,
you take matter and energy, aplly the laws of the universe and out pops a human, non-random.
you take rubber and leather, apply the forces of the shoe making machine and out pops a shoe, non- random.
why is one designed and one not I ask again? you have not answered that question, let me know yout criterion for judging something to be designed and then i can know why you say the universe is not designed.
Here’s an idea. Since the speck of us is so small and thus so ridiculously insignificant in space and time, could it be that we are in fact just the right mix for life to happen in what appears to be a vast universe that is not a factory with an agenda and a production protocol? I mean seriously. If there is an intelligent being behind this creation of us, he’s pretty much an oxymoron.
the universe is non-random, so we are not a perfect "mix" we are the outcome of this universal function, indeed just like every other form and energy in the universe, and how can you say we are insignificant in the universe? what criterion are you using to declare insignificance? size? how much matter I take up compared to the universe as a whole? I am just as significant as the star that exists 10 billion light years away, or the speck of dust that i just wiped off my desk.
- Login to post comments
Offline What are the one set of variables specifically? Since you’ve observed these things or their products, would you mind showing us this preprogramming from your perspective in Kelly’s terms—that would be directly or indirectly?
in my last post i said, matter and energy is nevar created nor destoyed so we can label it as a whole {1}, now the variables that act upon the matter and energy are gravity which we can labe 1X and their are the laws of motion we can call X/2 and we can call the 4 fundemental forces +4,its a simple model but is gets my idea across.
{1} Set
(1x)(/2)(+4) function
so theirs my simple mathemetical model of the universe, now when u complete the equation you are always going to get the same answer, why? becasue nothing changes, the laws dont change, matter is neither created nor destroyed. it will alwsy reach the same end no matter what.
now if by observing a shoe making factory I can infer that the factory was indeed designed which shows inteligence, why can I not do the same with the universe?
i cant copy and patse yer black writing so ill just respond to what u said about the factory not having a brain.
why does the factory need a brain? its not the one making deductions and conclusion, Only the observer needs a brain, me and you, so observe each item, the universe, and the factory, and tell me why one is designed and one isnt.
is it possible you are hanging on to this special pleading because you don’t want to let your god go in the face of damning evidence?
now onto your "logical fallacy" wow, you really are trying to find anything now, you yourself said that my belief is under damning evidence to not be true, what damning evidence were you talking about? it must exist becasue u referred to it in one of your posts? i find it amazing that you can refer to this "damning evidence" then when i ask you for it, you tell me that you can not produce it? seriously dont refer to something and then say it doesnt exist, it makes you look stupid.
i
- Login to post comments
Offline i could theorize that awareness is not connected to the body, and that our awareness is only pulled into the dimension through the organism of the human form. Look at quantum mechanics, it shows that their is most likely more than 10 dimensions, we can see 3 of them, i could theorize endlessly about these dimensions and what is possible through such parameters of 10+ dimensions. You can do it also, you should try it sometime.
Um, no you can't theorize that. Because you don't know enough about quantum mechanics and multidimensional theory. Neither do I. However I do the smart thing and listen to the people who have given us these theories. They certainly aren't admitting the possibility that human souls could be hiding in higher dimensions.
Since you can't present any real theory of how this happens, and neither has anyone else, it is time for you to admit that when you say "dimensions" you really mean "magic."
If awareness is only physical atoms moving from place to place then their can be no distinction between the universe and man, thus we should infer that the universe is inteligent, why? becasue I am a process of the universe and I am inteligent, I have an unbroken bond through the physical elements with all things in the universe, my energy is its energy, we are one and the same. The energy that I am will go right back into the universe and become something else, What distinction do you make between me and a tree or a stone or a star? we are all the same things, complex constructs of a universal function, the universe is indeed inteligent if indeed i am conected to it in the way that you speak, by the unbroken bond of physics.
OK, no problem with any of that. If you wish to discard our artificial boundaries between ourselves and the universe and note that as part of the interlinked whole, we are the universe and the universe is us, that does indeed make the universe intelligent, as we are, because we and the universe are the same thing.
The only thing is, we certainly do tend to perceive ourselves as separate from the other things around us. Now, I realize that we are mistaken and I don't want you to take this as an attempt to dissuade you from your correct philosophical position that we are actually one with the Andromeda galaxy. It's just that I must admit I find it hard to get around when I don't acknowledge any difference between where I am and where I'm going. Oh, and I tried not eating once because I realized that I'm really the same thing as the sun, and therefore had all the energy I need, but my stupid body just kept insisting that it was hungry.
Look, I know that you've resolved all these silly issues and that I'm just too simpleminded to really connect with the spiritual Oneness of all things, but if it's all right with you, I'm just going to limp along with my primitive viewpoint that different things have different characteristics and that the universe can't be considered as a homogenous whole. Have fun with your elightenment, however. Say hi to Buddha when you see him.
please explain to me this randomness, becasue as i understand it even at the quantum level it is not truly random but only seems to be, please enlighten me. and yes you agree with me that evolution is not random but set by the laws that govern in this universe.
True randomness does exist at the quantum level because it is impossible to know the exact position of a particle relative to any other particle due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, even when it looks like some effect causes some particle to move, we cannot be sure that it did except within some margin of error. Therefore, all the laws of physics are really just probability at the quantum level. It is not certain that my pen will drop when I release it in the air, it is only very very very probable once you add up all the quantum events.
i went over the first portion in my last statements, and i have a question for your theory,
if all the dumber ones died as you say, how did any of the one before it live? that really doesnt make any sense, you will have to state it in a differant manner. yes and indeed inteligence in an evolved property that is not random and is set in the unversal laws of the universe, it is a part of the universes plan and function.
*sigh* They died at a higher rate before reaching sexual maturity, obviously. I hoped it wouldn't be necessary to point out that no evolution can occur in a population with a 100% death rate. 
Just because humans are intelligent and, at some level, connected to the rest of the universe, does not mean that the entire universe can act intelligently. My hand is attached to my body and therefore my brain, but it cannot act intelligently without my brain. You have arrived at an absurd conclusion and still failed to show why all parts of the universe should share intelligence because one part of it does.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Um, no you can't theorize that. Because you don't know enough about quantum mechanics and multidimensional theory. Neither do I. However I do the smart thing and listen to the people who have given us these theories. They certainly aren't admitting the possibility that human souls could be hiding in higher dimensions.
Since you can't present any real theory of how this happens, and neither has anyone else, it is time for you to admit that when you say "dimensions" you really mean "magic."
wow i didnt know that you were the authority on what I could theorize about? you do the smart thing and listen to them, so what have they said about quantum mechanics? tell me some basics that you have learned so I can use it in my theory. and you will have to define "magic" because I am not theorizing about "magic" im and theorizing about the possibilites of a multidimensiaonal universe and its implications that it can have on awareness.
that does indeed make the universe intelligent, as we are,
so you agree with me that the universe is inteligent, thanks.
True randomness does exist at the quantum level because it is impossible to know the exact position of a particle relative to any other particle due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, even when it looks like some effect causes some particle to move, we cannot be sure that it did except within some margin of error. Therefore, all the laws of physics are really just probability at the quantum level. It is not certain that my pen will drop when I release it in the air, it is only very very very probable once you add up all the quantum events.
it is impossible to know
yer right you do not know, and just becasue humans can not predict the place of a particle does not make it random, give me a link to some information on this, becasue you are arguing from ignorance which is not a good position.
Just because humans are intelligent and, at some level, connected to the rest of the universe, does not mean that the entire universe can act intelligently
why is this true, please explain it, do not just state it, show me the reasoning train.
p.s. buhdda says wasssup.
- Login to post comments
Offline What God are you reffering to that is ordered and structured?
i nevar said god was ordered or structured,
you say that creatures have usless parts, why casue you can not find a use for them?
and you are right, the events are seemingly random to you, but in reality they are under certain laws and forces that are constant, so nothing is random.
the entire universe is designed from my observation, what do you see and explain to me your observations please.
why is a hurricane bad?
(Panglossian defense of hurricanes...)
There are MUCH better ways to achieve such goals, like using bulldozers and controlled flooding.
and you did not explain what is the distinction tell me why is a video recorder designed but a eyeball is not?
Video cameras have numerous designers, so could eyes have had numerous designers?
Video cameras have designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient, so could eyes have had designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient?
Video cameras have designers that are sometimes fallible, so could eyes have had designers that are sometimes fallible?
With a real factory you can point to location, machinery, workers, etc. Where are all these things in the universe?location is space-time, machinery is all the forces and laws of the universe such as gravity and matter and energy, the worker is time.
tell me why the shoe factory required a designer but the universe did not? explain it.
And the Universe has relatively simple natural laws that can produce a LOT of complexity.
Are there little fairies that live in clouds and make water vapor condense into snowflake shapes? Seriously.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks again for responding. I always feel like I learn something from you, despite disagreeing. (As opposed to theist1, who seems to be a master of the God of the Gaps argument).
Apologies for labelling Ockham as a misspelling. I stand corrected.
On to the arguments:
For example, we don’t understand where the laws of physics come from.
Nor do we know if this is a valid question to ask. Always remember that just because a question can be asked, doesn't mean it's valid. "How does one draw a square-circle?" is a good example.
Thus there will be questions about God we will not be able to answer and things we will not be able to completely understand.
I can accept that as being reasonable. It's important to note that the same thing can be said about Nonexistence.
By the same token, this doesn't mean that whenever god does poke out of our conceptual box that "He works in mysterious ways" is a valid explanation. At some point, you'd have to say, "God, whatever that is, is too unknowable to be relevant to humanity."
I think it is a mistake to assume: as we, so God. Who is to say what the consciousness of God is like?
Fair enough. However, we have to have some cognitive content to the word "God" in order to proceed. You can't believe in The Unknown.
There is no absolutely certain knowledge for finite knowers.
Are you certain about that?
It's cheeky, but I'm being serious. Although it's always good to hold reasonable doubts, strict universal skepticism is an untenable position. The concept of "there is no absolutely certain knowledge" is itself a piece of knowledge. Therefore, if it's true, it's false, because it demonstrates one piece of "certain knowledge." I think you understand this though, so I won't harp on it.
On a personal note, I’d like to share some of my background to elaborate on this process. ... The more and more I have studied theology, the more I have been able to find answers to these questions that I have had about my faith. And I have to tell you that I have yet to encounter the kind of cognitive (and emotional) dissonance that would demand that I toss my worldview aside. I have had to adjust many ways in which I understand my faith. ... I’m astonished at how cohesively even some of the hardest questions seem to fit into this understanding of reality.
I'm curious as to an example of a resolved dissonance. If it's off-topic from this forum, feel free to email me.
When I try to examine reality from the atheist perspective, it just doesn’t seem to make near as much sense of life and reality.
Ahh...the crux of our difference. The world makes SO much more sense to me from the atheist perspective. But I can appreciate you having a differing opinion on this.
First you must answer the question of whether or not what you would “like” to see is appropriate critera. But beyond that, what is “extraordinary”? And what criteria establishes something as “extraordinary”? And do you use the same criteria for one thing that you do another? For example, the criteria that establishes a work of art as “extraordinary” is different than what establishes a scientific theory as “extraordinary.” An extraordinary scientific theory is reductionistic. ... [and onwards to reductionist criticisms, ending with...] One last thing that Polanyi speaks of is how natural theology and “proofs” for God are proofs from the inside the hermeneutical spiral. They make sense of the worldview from the inside, but they are not proofs from the outside, and they don’t necessarily need to be.
Well, slow down here. For one, this is not meant as a deep philosophical discussion, this is simply calling a bluff. My standards for evidence are more than personal testimony, whether it has to do with god or not. This is particularly true when corroborating evidence exists. If someone you know claims God altered the weather for them, then that should be easily corroborated by Doppler radar. Otherwise, the person could just be making it up, or simply mistaken (the storm was already moving away, although it appeared to be coming closer).
Further, I don't see how forms of evidence are influenced much by being "inside" or "outside" the worldview, other than perhaps a personal experience of god. In all other cases it shouldn't make a difference: if someone has testimony on how god has acted in their life, it is not unreasonable to question it or ask for corroborating evidence. Any physical interaction leaves a trace -- all I'm saying is that I want to examine the trace.
I have no fundamental conceptual problem with believing that god healed a blind man through your friend -- it goes against my worldview, but who am I to dictate what's possible? -- I'm just saying that because it goes against my common sense (I have never seen a healing) and the standard assumption of this society (we have LensCrafters for people with bad eyes, not PrayerCrafters), I need more evidence to tip the balance from "this is just hearsay or lying or a mistake" to "this actually happened."
That's all. Once I agree with you that a blind mind was spontaneously healed without scientific explanation, then we can argue the significance or implications of that -- but you have to get me there first. Accepting things uncritically goes against your Critical Realist philosophy anyway.
Cheers!
- Login to post comments
Offline What one infers from the premise that complexity can only be caused by greater complexity.
not really, we could theorize that complexity comes from simplicity as well.
i nevar said god was ordered or structured,
And what is your opinion on that?
my opinion would be that God is a paradox, he is infinitely complex and infinitaly simple, much like light is a particle and a wave, its just an opinion.
One can test such hypotheses by removing such body parts, like the human appendix. And most appendix-removed people show no sign of deleterious effects from the lack of that organ.
human appendixes had use before when we were less evolved I believe, so no you cant test this, unless you can travel through time and show me each step of evolution and also have complete knowledge of the use of all things that have been formed, so not really.
Randomness is an emergent property, like computer pseudo-random numbers. Those numbers are produced by a deterministic algorithm, yet they satisfy statistical tests for randomness.
statistical test? what test is this, please explain, becasue if the algorithm is deterministic how is it going to be random? it may appear to be random but due to the determinism of the equation it most likely is not.
How do you "observe" that the Universe has been designed? And what would make you conclude that something is *not* designed?
i explained how i observed the universe being designed before in this thread, if you want to read it.
give me an example of something that is not designed, becasue under the universal function all things have part in the design, so all things have elements of design.
Have you ever lived through a hurricane? Or studied a hurricane's effects? I don't think that the people of New Orleans would appreciate your Pollyannaism about hurricanes.
(Panglossian defense of hurricanes...)
There are MUCH better ways to achieve such goals, like using bulldozers and controlled flooding.
lets not get into opinions of good and bad, we are not taling about morality.
It is possible to track down the designers and manufacturers of video cameras; can that also be done with eyes?
can you track down the designers of the colliseum? no, their is evidence to suggest who built and and how, and from this evidence we can infer who built it, same thing goes for the universe.
Video cameras have numerous designers, so could eyes have had numerous designers?
i dont see how this matter when it comes to something being designed or not, whats the differance on the # of designers and how does it help us figure if something is designed or not?
Video cameras have designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient, so could eyes have had designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient?
im arguing it is designed, not who the designer was and his attributes, that would be a thological discussion which athiests are incapable of, might as well argue the attributes of the tooth fairy with athiests casue it would be the same as God in their opinion.
That's not a design process. It's a Universe that operates on automatic, as it were, with no design happening on as it changes over time.
wow it is designed becasue you said it wasnt? why if you found a shoe factory on an island you would assume it was designed yet the universe, no, please explain yer opinion in detail. what do you mean no design as it changes over time? what are you saying that makes the universe not designed as i have already explained why i observe it as designed.
Why does a shoe factory "need" a designer?
And the Universe has relatively simple natural laws that can produce a LOT of complexity.
Are there little fairies that live in clouds and make water vapor condense into snowflake shapes? Seriously.
man, we have really seen the depth of your logic, apparently if we found a shoe factory me and you and we were standing outside of it, i would say "man look at the deisgn of this shoe factory" and you wouldnt agree with me that it was designed, haha, nice try, dont try and act stupid, if you want to let go of all reason to uphold your view thats fine, but their is no point in conversating with me if you will deny the simple fact that a shoe factory needs to be designed.
ummm yeah the laws make things complex, so?
are their fairies? you tell me.
- Login to post comments
Offline What one infers from the premise that complexity can only be caused by greater complexity.
not really, we could theorize that complexity comes from simplicity as well.
i nevar said god was ordered or structured,
And what is your opinion on that?
my opinion would be that God is a paradox, he is infinitely complex and infinitaly simple, much like light is a particle and a wave, its just an opinion.
One can test such hypotheses by removing such body parts, like the human appendix. And most appendix-removed people show no sign of deleterious effects from the lack of that organ.
human appendixes had use before when we were less evolved I believe, so no you cant test this, unless you can travel through time and show me each step of evolution and also have complete knowledge of the use of all things that have been formed, so not really.
Randomness is an emergent property, like computer pseudo-random numbers. Those numbers are produced by a deterministic algorithm, yet they satisfy statistical tests for randomness.
statistical test? what test is this, please explain, becasue if the algorithm is deterministic how is it going to be random? it may appear to be random but due to the determinism of the equation it most likely is not.
How do you "observe" that the Universe has been designed? And what would make you conclude that something is *not* designed?
i explained how i observed the universe being designed before in this thread, if you want to read it.
give me an example of something that is not designed, becasue under the universal function all things have part in the design, so all things have elements of design.
Have you ever lived through a hurricane? Or studied a hurricane's effects? I don't think that the people of New Orleans would appreciate your Pollyannaism about hurricanes.
(Panglossian defense of hurricanes...)
There are MUCH better ways to achieve such goals, like using bulldozers and controlled flooding.
lets not get into opinions of good and bad, we are not taling about morality.
It is possible to track down the designers and manufacturers of video cameras; can that also be done with eyes?
can you track down the designers of the colliseum? no, their is evidence to suggest who built and and how, and from this evidence we can infer who built it, same thing goes for the universe.
Video cameras have numerous designers, so could eyes have had numerous designers?
i dont see how this matter when it comes to something being designed or not, whats the differance on the # of designers and how does it help us figure if something is designed or not?
Video cameras have designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient, so could eyes have had designers that are far from omnipotent or omniscient?
im arguing it is designed, not who the designer was and his attributes, that would be a thological discussion which athiests are incapable of, might as well argue the attributes of the tooth fairy with athiests casue it would be the same as God in their opinion.
That's not a design process. It's a Universe that operates on automatic, as it were, with no design happening on as it changes over time.
wow it is designed becasue you said it wasnt? why if you found a shoe factory on an island you would assume it was designed yet the universe, no, please explain yer opinion in detail. what do you mean no design as it changes over time? what are you saying that makes the universe not designed as i have already explained why i observe it as designed.
Why does a shoe factory "need" a designer?
And the Universe has relatively simple natural laws that can produce a LOT of complexity.
Are there little fairies that live in clouds and make water vapor condense into snowflake shapes? Seriously.
man, we have really seen the depth of your logic, apparently if we found a shoe factory me and you and we were standing outside of it, i would say "man look at the deisgn of this shoe factory" and you wouldnt agree with me that it was designed, haha, nice try, dont try and act stupid, if you want to let go of all reason to uphold your view thats fine, but their is no point in conversating with me if you will deny the simple fact that a shoe factory needs to be designed.
ummm yeah the laws make things complex, so?
are their fairies? you tell me.
- Login to post comments
Offline wanted to point out some things about what u said miketwo
For example, we don’t understand where the laws of physics come from.
Nor do we know if this is a valid question to ask. Always remember that just because a question can be asked, doesn't mean it's valid. "How does one draw a square-circle?" is a good example.
funny that you compare a desire to seek out the source of universal laws with the question "can you draw a square circle" haha, i bet you would have said that to newton right before he created the theory of gravity or einstein when he created the theory of reletivity, you make no sense.
You can't believe in The Unknown.
by definition you can only belive in the unknown, thats why its called a belief.
for claiming to be logical, you really are not.
- Login to post comments
Offline The claim that it is a scientific fact that the world is billions of years old, is just patently false.
There has never been anykind of universal consensus on this subject.
Second, you only believe in the old earth theory because there's an agenda to teach it in the public school system.
Third, evev if the world IS billions of years old, this doesn't threaten Christianity! lol We never officially stated that the world was young.
Augustine, in his City of God harrumphed at those pagans who claimed that the Universe is much more than 6000 years old -- including pagan philosophers like Aristotle who believed that the Universe is eternal.
My point is that we are open to the idea of an old world, if scientific evidence can be produced to convince us. Thus far, there has been no hard data supporting it.
If you go to the Institution for Creation Research (ICR.org), they have an extensive list of scientists (biologists, geologists, astrophycists) who believe in a young earth.
True, there are some science Christians that believe in an old earth. Hugh Ross (reasons.org) is one of them. I believe if you study this subject, you will see evidence for both sides.
- Login to post comments
Offline thiest1
I am just trying to clarify for my understanding. In your view all things are designed, because there are constant parameters that force them into a particular pattern, but these laws do not have to be intelligent, nor do they have to depend on an intelligence. I say your statement is moot, because it can be used for either side intelligence or non-intelligence, you have yet to prove it cannot be non-intelligent, you have asserted it cannot, but presented nothing that says so. The only thing we have are those natural laws we don't have knowledge as to why law x had this constant property. These parameters might not even be constant, they just have been long enough to allow for us to emerge, tomorrow we might all just fall apart as the constancy of matter becomes unstable. Probability is the only thing we really have for future events. So like I said your entire arguement is a moot point no ground has been gain or can be gained until further knowledge is found. Unless you can say anything significant about what an intelligent designed universe would have over an un-intelligent universe, under the same constant laws which could very well be a random set of constant laws have it is and shall remain a moot point.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline because it can be used for either side intelligence or non-intelligence.
show this to me with the factory analogy, how does realizing with human reason that a factory that makes shoes is designed as I am sure you will agree with me, which in being designed shows inteligence, do you not agree with that assertion? if something is designed then something had to use inteligence to design it? why is that not true, so no, the arguement can not be used for non-inteligence, it doesnt make sense because if their truly is design, as far as human reason goes, if their is a design then their is some inteligence that put forth the design.
Unless you can say anything significant about what an intelligent designed universe would have over an un-intelligent universe
as i have shown in my observation, the significance of their being a design to the universe is huge, as with human reason we can infer inteligence when we witness design, and as you know if we infer inteligence then we can infer awareness, and if indeed their has been awareness involved in the universe we can imply that "God" exists.
under the same constant laws which could very well be a random set of constant laws
i hope you can see how illogical this idea is, if the laws are random how would they be constant? and we can opbserve that this is not true with science, look at the periodic table of elements, the elements do not combine "randomly" they are set in a pattern that when applied and built up over time forms a human being and actually forms awareness.
so if you want to argue what your trying to argue which is everything is completely unknown then fine, but if you want to have a reasonable argument we will have to use what we have found to be true in the known universe as it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline because it can be used for either side intelligence or non-intelligence.
show this to me with the factory analogy, how does realizing with human reason that a factory that makes shoes is designed as I am sure you will agree with me, which in being designed shows inteligence, do you not agree with that assertion? if something is designed then something had to use inteligence to design it? why is that not true, so no, the arguement can not be used for non-inteligence, it doesnt make sense because if their truly is design, as far as human reason goes, if their is a design then their is some inteligence that put forth the design.
Unless you can say anything significant about what an intelligent designed universe would have over an un-intelligent universe
as i have shown in my observation, the significance of their being a design to the universe is huge, as with human reason we can infer inteligence when we witness design, and as you know if we infer inteligence then we can infer awareness, and if indeed their has been awareness involved in the universe we can imply that "God" exists.
You have not shown that you simply assumed it. We can infer design because we are intelligent, we are intelligent because we were designed?
under the same constant laws which could very well be a random set of constant laws
i hope you can see how illogical this idea is, if the laws are random how would they be constant? and we can opbserve that this is not true with science, look at the periodic table of elements, the elements do not combine "randomly" they are set in a pattern that when applied and built up over time forms a human being and actually forms awareness.
so if you want to argue what your trying to argue which is everything is completely unknown then fine, but if you want to have a reasonable argument we will have to use what we have found to be true in the known universe as it is.
I didn't say the laws in and of themselves are random, but the predeterminer of the laws. Let us take the multi verse as an idea for this. In every single verse are a different random set of laws. The fact that we are here contemplating it is only evidence that this particular universe has the constant laws that allow for such a behavior to happen. In some other verse it would be impossible for matter to stay consistent and as such we couldn't be discussing it in that verse.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline The claim that it is a scientific fact that the world is billions of years old, is just patently false. There has never been anykind of universal consensus on this subject. Second, you only believe in the old earth theory because there's an agenda to teach it in the public school system. Third, evevif the world IS billions of years old, this doesn't threaten Christianity! lol We never officially stated that the world was young. My point is that we are open to the idea of an old world, if scientific evidence can be produced to convince us. Thus far, there has been no hard data supporting it. If you go to the Institution for Creation Research (ICR.org), they have an extensive list of scientists (biologists, geologists, astrophycists) who believe in a young earth. True, there are some science Christians that believe in an old earth. Hugh Ross (reasons.org) is one of them. I believe if you study this subject, you will see evidence for both sides.
You may not have officially claimed that the earth is only 6000 years old but most of the churches in the United States have claimed that the earth was created 6000 years ago. I was watching a tv show the other night on one of those christian networks. They had fossils out and charts trying to rewrite science.
As for the earth being billions of years old, YES it is accepted by all reputable scientists that the earth is billions of years old. The only thing they do not agree on is how many billions of years and when exactly do you begin to call it a planet.
We have studied it and NO there is no evidence for both sides. Such evidence was gathered by mentally ill want to be scientists who have a religious agenda.
On another matter, the Senate of the great state of Texas just voted on a law that will introduce bible study into Texas High Schools as a required course. You can try to water down the threat that christians and other radical religions pose but there is a growing population in this country that will not stand for it.
- Login to post comments
Offline I actually feel sorry for the creators of this site because they they only serve to make atheism look follish due to their ignorance in these areas. I highly advise that you people educate yourself. Here are some good places to start.
HISTORICAL JESUS
http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/historicaljesus.php
JOSEPHUS PROVEN AUTHENTIC
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.htm
BOOKS ON HISTORICAL JESUS
Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence.
Bruce, F.F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ.
NEW TESTAMENT DATING
http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.php
GOD EXISTS
http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/cosarg.php
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html
That's not education, that's indoctrination. If you read Harry Potter enough times you'll start to believe that crap too.
- Login to post comments
Offline On another matter, the Senate of the great state of Texas just voted on a law that will introduce bible study into Texas High Schools as a required course. You can try to water down the threat that christians and other radical religions pose but there is a growing population in this country that will not stand for it.
If thats true (I haven't looked it up yet) and it sticks, my only hope would be that the more people studying the bible the more people will realize its BS and will deconvert themselves.
- Login to post comments
Offline Theist1
im not claiming anything, i am theorizing, if i was claiming God exists i would say, God exists, but i am not, i am giving opinions on the subject of God existing, and i am wondering does anyone else follow maya's train of thought here? casue it sounds like billy madison trying to answer a economics question, makes no sense, you are obviously to smart for me, so please ask me the question in a simple manner, i do not see how yer senteces before "so who is the designer" even remotely infer to that question, please ask plainly.
First off, no one is trying to force you to be a monotheist or even an actual theist for that matter, namesake notwithstanding. However, if you want to be the devil’s advocate, you still need to follow your premises to their logical conclusions.
You propose a design, much in the same way Ray does in the debate. You qualify this design in similar terms. The complexity of the rock, humans, the solar system entails “purpose” and that purpose belongs to the universe which is by the way a factory conveniently enough.
Factories without recognizable component parts, assume design without any actual designer in mind. It seems you are trying to strip the fat from Ray’s assertions in the debate only to make your own assertions here with a sufficiently watered down version so that you can’t get pinned to anything. All of this “proof”, whether that be Ray’s, yours, or even the more eloquent Sara’s, remains assertions sans any support. Sorry.
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline [/b]Theist1[b]
location is space-time, machinery is all the forces and laws of the universe such as gravity and matter and energy, the worker is time. Lets look at the anology again, ok so the universe has a function as you can agree with me, it forms everything around us, much like a shoe factory forms shoes, now why can I not reason that if the shoe factory took a designer to set it up and make shoes, why can I not use a logical inference to assign a designer to a universe when it creates forms much more complex than a shoe, especially when the universe is non-random and always abides by the same rules, much like a shoe factory is in its paremeters to make shoes.
You are already on the wrong foot here:
“Lets (sic) look at the anology (sic) again, ok so the universe has a function.”
This is a deliberately ambiguous statement that applies gaps for god to fit into, in the same way as statements like “evolution is just a “theory” are tacitly correct and incorrect in the same breath. This ambiguity is the domain of many theists bent on apologetics instead of knowledge, which is a sad case for their side in my opinion.
A “function” implies “purpose” as you are wont to remind us—and in your case it seems, though you avoid the commitment outright, that this “purpose” is intelligently derived. It would be great if you could just come out and say whether or not you think intelligence is part of this discussion we are having. That might help a lot in getting where it is you are coming from with respect to function and factories.
If you are not implying the Christian “intelligent” god, are you implying an “intelligent” god or gods of any kind? If you are indeed using the term function including a morphology related to intelligence, then you have a hell of a lot more support and evidence to supply to make this claim stick.
Now function and purpose respectively could exist without the requirement of an intelligent source. For instance, a biologist could refer to a crocodile’s “function” within a given ecosystem, discussing the role it plays in maintaining balance. This function is not by any means a required, intelligently given “purpose” that must be imparted from outside the system, romantic though that thought is to certain people. In fact, the function is merely the role the crocodile plays that scientists have objectively observed OVER TIME. In this case, the function might stay the same as we understand it for many, many years. Later discoveries might turn significant elements of this “function” on their heads and come up with new, altogether confusing explanations for the role or function that the crocodile has in nature.
With the former, all one has to do is imply a sentient being with the bells and whistles of creative prowess and whatever discoveries are found anew by actual scientists doing field work, they simply get subsumed within a construct that answers all questions regardless of what they are. I’d love to say that this intellectual laziness should be readily apparent to most people. Sadly, this remains a hard claim to make in this world or ours.
And it seems to follow that you too cannot see the folly in your own language. You imply “function” ambiguously then tie this function to a factory analogy that has no component parts. When you are asked to provide a solid basis for your analogy as it pertains to factories, all you do is label the known and studied laws of our universe communally as the machinery or the mechanism of this factory you assert exists, which again implies intelligence, an intelligence you don’t even want to name. My, when you look at your argument laid out like that, well you have to wonder what the hell it is you are going on about. What you fail to see, what many theists fail to see as well, is that there is no reason to assume an intelligent function for our universe because it does not appear to function like a factory at all, nor as a cosmic fart as I stated earlier, thank [insert desired entity]. In my previous post to you, I outline exactly what is missing from your analogy that shows how tenuous it is (inefficiency being the most damaging I’d say).
If one looks at the cosmos and sees it for what it is, not what we want it to be, one will see that all humans have is evidence of is a function in isolation that operates based on laws we are only truly beginning to understand, laws that could still potentially change in our conception drastically within the next 20 years. And when and if they do, well that is not a sentient being we created in our dark ages making this happen; it is merely us coming to a point in time where we understand what already exists better than we did before. It really is that simple and than poignant.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline Theist1’s remaining quibbles
tell me why the shoe factory required a designer but the universe did not? explain it.
I’d say apples and oranges, but I fear the implications would be lost on you. To hearken to a Ray example: A coke can within the known universe and the laws that make up everything, including mass production, this object as it were implies creation by man.
A tree on the other hand, though inspiring in majesty is not the same thing. In fact, when people first saw trees they imagined all kinds of things, figured out how they could be used for fire and building, and even later understood how they affect the air we breathe. In none of this is there a reasonable assumption of creation, unless it is agenda driven.
I fear this will be just as lost on you…Fine… It’s apples and oranges, man!
gravity, the 4 fundemental forces, the laws of motion, the speed of light.these variables in my universe factory are the same things that are modling the shoes, you need to have each one set perfectly to mold the shoe, just like these perameters mold the human form,
I take this is not an exhaustive list. Regardless. I’ll pick the speed of light, then. Using the speed of light and how it “functions” could you please explain what role it serves in the factory of the universe and ultimately how (if indeed this is part of your thesis) an intelligent agent used this “machine” to create us? Once you’ve done this could you please explain how this process validates your show factory example?
you take rubber and leather, apply the forces of the shoe making machine and out pops a shoe, non- random.
I assume then that the rubber for the shoes, which itself is processed represents another factory and thus another universe? This would hold for the leather as well, which is also organic matter having first been living tissue and then processed to be used in shoes. How many universes are you espousing here? Remember, implications, baby! Aren’t they a bitch?!
And this randomness thing you keep grasping at. Could you please explain how say the speed of light merely being a force acting in accordance with the laws of the universe is random? That would help a great deal, Theist1. We don’t want to add that term to “theory,” “function,” and the all-encompassing “proving a negative” now do we?
why is one designed and one not I ask again? you have not answered that question, let me know yout criterion for judging something to be designed and then i can know why you say the universe is not designed.
Okay, this is a fair question. I’ll answer you with the expectation that you will in good faith answer those questions I have asked you above. I’ll start with the “why” portion of this question and then qualify things from there.
I can say that I know “why” a shoe is designed because I can see all of the incremental parts of the design process all the way to the product in question, and by this I mean every part. In doing so, I can begin to understand the “implications” of this process, not only that it exists.
For convenience sake, I’ll stay on this with shoes as the example.
I’ve been aware of shoes since before I learned about how they are made. I struggled like many kids in learning to tie the laces of my shoes to make them hold. I remember distinctly the pride I felt in learning how to double tie my laces so that my cleats wouldn’t come off during games. This was particularly difficult for me as I am left handed. All this stuff I learned I had to learned “backwards” so to speak. This is why I am learning to play the guitar in the right handed style.
Anyway, this empirical relationship I have with shoes started when I was very young. Now to use the analogy you have proposed, I could have been told by numerous people that shoes came from god and that I ought to be grateful to this god for receiving them. I would have bought this hook, line, and sinker sans any evidence to the contrary because I was innocent and gullible then. Look, shoes are designed, there must be a designer. That designer is god. This should sound familiar to you because Gato illustrated this same point in castrating that source you “cited” a few pages back.
Now, in my case, I later became a long distance runner in my high school years and also later in college. There was a time when I actually thought shoes and shoe production were very interesting concepts. The materials used for my “racing flats” were different than the materials used for my daily training shoes. There were even breathable materials used for those times when we competed in wetter areas and had to run through water. Water is heavy, so porous shoes where an advantage for instance. In all of this time, I reviewed shoes, got free samples from shoe makers and even went to actual factories to see how they were made. Even if I had had no real interest in shoes and their factories, I could still have known about the process from my consumer habits.
This knowledge was bolstered even further in my time as an exchange student in Salzburg some years back. I remember learning about mountain climbing shoes, shoes for cyclists, shoes used for construction workers as well. There were always differences, steel toes, clips to hold them in peddles, etc, but there was also a continuity in the design relative to the human foot. This much remained the same no matter which shoes I came across. This knowledge remains in one of my new passions, golf. I have three pairs of golf shoes, all good for different conditions.
Recently on a clean up dive in PG here in the Philippines, I took my dive bag down to 25 meters and started collecting manufactured things and removing them from the reef. I picked up plastic bags, coke cans, fishing line, various boat parts I could never name in a thousand years, and a bunch of other manufactured things that people had carelessly tossed overboard. Believe it or not, I even gingerly fished out the remnants of an old rubber shoe from the tentacles of a beautiful anemone. It was the first time I was able to use my dive knife so I remember this distinctly. Thank goodness I got it out without hurting this wonderful creature.
What is amazing, Theist1, is that I never, not once, got any of the soft or hard coral confused with a manufacturing process. The interwoven shells on the hard coral remind me of the rings I might see in trees. Someone told me that I am correct in this comparison but I have yet to research this myself. I never saw the fish swimming about, particularly the dangerous lion and scorpion fish, which can kill you if they sting you enough, as manufactured. In fact, I saw some creatures protecting their eggs. I saw others eating them. Nowhere did I see a shoe factory analogy in the inner workings of this reef. I saw interrelated creatures living within a habitat that has probably been there for millions of years, just as I have learned from the time I started to understand evolution.
Also, taking just one example of the teeming life of this reef, I saw something in the area six species of parrot fish, some tiny and colorful existing within the reef proper, others huge and circling higher up above the reef like black shapes waiting for a meal. Each of these has a common ancestor which I read about in diving books. Each of them living on this one reef shows that evolution works in that I can name six component parts in this one isolated case. You still can’t name one, not one that can be realistically and quantifiably connected to a design by an intelligent something.
I forget who it was earlier on, but someone brought up a hugely damaging point about the inactive information for DNA “programming” for teeth in birds for instance that do not promote a design protocol. No one has been able to answer this glaring problem that I can see, much to the detriment of any design thesis connected to intelligence. Can you? Can you explain how a bird containing DNA code for teeth jives with your inferred truth about our universe factory? That could be the single most damaging piece of evidence I’ve seen anywhere in any thread I’ve participated on with this topic. I’m so interested in its implications that I am going to take some of my summer break from classes this year and research in my capacity how this plays out with these same parrot fish.
If anyone knows where I can do this, please give me a nudge in the right direction.
Yes, I know this now because of what I know about diving and the world, just like you know what you claim to know. The difference between you and me is that I can in fact tell you how the implications work with the conclusions I have drawn. I have read books on diving for example to understand the process of breathing air under water and what happens if you are not careful. I’ve experienced the consequences of the realities of the science of scuba diving on a few occasions, one nearly costing someone their life.
When I have needed to, I’ve read more to become a better diver and can easily distinguish the various types of equipment I own and need for specific dives. This is all deductive reasoning by the way, which is the way to go about diving. I wouldn’t recommend one rely too much on inductive conclusions, that is if one wants to stay alive.
I now understand better the chemical processes in cuddle fish and octopi and better why it is they use them in hunting and surviving. I read about it, watched films on this and in some ways have seen the process myself. Can you make this same claim for your universe factory as it pertains to our planet? Please do if in fact you can.
I know that it is very bad to view sea turtles from above for instance because some will get frightened and not come up for air, so I am careful to avoid making this mistake. How do I know, well, I know because I have read about it, thus allowing me to act accordingly underwater. This fear the turtles have is related to the hunter—hunted dichotomy of our planet, a process that utterly blows intelligent design, especially any design brought about by a creature that gives a shit about what happens to the animals on this speck of dust called earth. Do you care about the millions of creatures you kill every time you brush you teeth?We are infinitely smaller than they are comparatively speaking.
The knowledge I gain and apply to the world and ultimately to the universe we live in tells me that creatures living in complex ecosystems, reproducing sexually and through cloning as coral does, implies a set of biological rules I am only partially clear on. I accept fully my ignorance of the whole process since it is bigger than my intellect at the moment. I suspect I’ll need to dive for 30 more years and meet that many more biologists along the way before I could make that claim even marginally les so. Compared to you, however, I don’t need to impose a design on this process like I know exists for shoes. I don’t do this because I know that logically any assertion I make in this realm of ignorance is true only insofar as EVERY other assertion ad infinitum is true for what is not necessary. This kind of inference is useless to me because it does nothing in helping me be a better or safer diver, let alone a better human being.
In terms of the universe, well that is even more difficult. Not only is my understanding limited to that of experiences on earth thus far, I don’t foresee me hopping aboard a space shuttle and experiencing even a sliver of the universe as have been able to do in diving an visiting shoe factories here on earth. Limitations being wheat they are, I’ll stick to what I can impact. For the rest I’ll read and compare. What are you going to compare your universe factory theory to/ What criteria do you have that you can apply to this thesis? Again, other then playing a naming game, you’ve offered nothing tangible.
No matter my limitations in life, I can still note the science all around me. The dive charts and books of the places I dive all note currents in their specific areas for instance. All of them point to dangers and/or conditions that are either good for diving or not.
When I got stuck three months ago hanging on for dear life off of a Japanese WWII wreck in Coron, I appreciated the moon in ways that I might never do again, hopefully not. If I had let go of that line, the surface boat might never have found me. I had science up to my ears, trying to decompress at ten meters and the 5, while holding on against a tidal onslaught brought on by the moon passing overhead. I’ve never been more of a layman’s cosmologist and I don’t have aspirations in this area in the sense that I need to get a degree in the science of it. But I can tell you that in this moment underwater watching my computer tick away the needed seconds of decompression that I felt a deep and kindred appreciation for the celestial bodies that make up our sliver of the universe. I suppose the Christian version of myself would have prayed to a non-existent god for help in overriding the evil’s of Satan’s tidal flux. The atheist me, scared though I was, remembered what I had read, and clipped a safety line from my lanyard so that I could get back if I lost my grip.
If I am totally honest, I have to admit that I said, “Thanks god that is over” when I reached the boat later on. Of course I was speaking figuratively of god in the nameless, faceless sense. When I got to the surface, it was science and experience that got me there, not any intelligent factory maker. There is no need for a factory for this process as with any others. It simply is what it is.
Cheers!
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline Satansbitch wrote:On another matter, the Senate of the great state of Texas just voted on a law that will introduce bible study into Texas High Schools as a required course. You can try to water down the threat that christians and other radical religions pose but there is a growing population in this country that will not stand for it.
If thats true (I haven't looked it up yet) and it sticks, my only hope would be that the more people studying the bible the more people will realize its BS and will deconvert themselves.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/07/legislature/4831635.html
- Login to post comments
Offline As I understand it, the school districts would be required to offer it as an elective. Students would not be required to take it. The cover that they're using is it would be a sort of history and culture class, not really a religious exercise. In my view, this is still Constitutionally problematic as the bible has little historical value. In addition, it's likely that the teachers for these classes would likely be Christians themselves and thus would in effect, be prostheletizing. In addition, it might serve as an unintended religious filter that would require non-Christians to "elect" it orpossibly be outed.
Incidentally, I happen to be from the area of Texas that is represented by the proposer of this bill. And in fact, I have relatives that live there. I asked her one time what the hell she did in Pampa TX. She said, "Go to church, have sex, and get blasted. After the first, you need an assload of the other two to get over it."
- Login to post comments
Offline Finally…
the universe is non-random, so we are not a perfect "mix" we are the outcome of this universal function, indeed just like every other form and energy in the universe, and how can you say we are insignificant in the universe? what criterion are you using to declare insignificance? size? how much matter I take up compared to the universe as a whole? I am just as significant as the star that exists 10 billion light years away, or the speck of dust that i just wiped off my desk.
It would really be nice if you could read what I have posted before asking redundant questions.
As I say before, the fact that we exist alone out in space in as tiny a capacity as your brain can imagine, this makes us practically speaking insignificant. If you doubt this, get a can of Raid and spray it on a colony of ants roaming in your kitchen. Do you care if they die? Do you care whether or not they know you are the agent of their demise? If you do, then take just one of those ants and isolate a hair on its leg. Pluck it out and then light it on fire. Is this hair significant? Yes, then extract one cell from this hair and kill it by any means. Perhaps you did in the extraction process. Even this cell from this ant leg is larger than we are comparatively speaking to the rest of the universe.
This simple fact gives my statement of our insignificance within the universe all the weight it needs. Given that we appear to be alone out in this part of the universe, despite the inferences of UFO pundits, provides ample reason to discount our overall importance.
In this case, size matters, and when coupled with volume, we rank pretty low on the scale. Now, you have many questions of mine to answer on top of addressing my aswsers to you. FYI. I’ve just CLASHED with your contentions by the way
{FIXED}
- Login to post comments
Offline Veils of Maya wrote:
How does which posts I choose to respond have anything to do with answering the question I posed?
When you claim that God exists and played a role in our creation, you imply that God has a purpose. In fact, the mere existence of God would imply he has some purpose, even if we couldn't comprehend it. If purpose equates design and God has a purpose, then your reasoning implies that God needs a designer. So who is this designer?
im not claiming anything, i am theorizing, if i was claiming God exists i would say, God exists, but i am not, i am giving opinions on the subject of God existing, and i am wondering does anyone else follow maya's train of thought here? casue it sounds like billy madison trying to answer a economics question, makes no sense, you are obviously to smart for me, so please ask me the question in a simple manner, i do not see how yer senteces before "so who is the designer" even remotely infer to that question, please ask plainly.
If you theorize a tree branch has an inherent purpose because it can be used as a walking stick, you're implying it has a purpose merely because it can be utilized. Since I could also use a tree branch as a club to kill someone or to build a house, it's purpose transcends an specific utilization. In other words, even if it does nothing more than take up space, you're implying it has an intrinsic purpose. It's mere existance implies a purpose. In your terms....
...becasue under the universal function all things have part in the design, so all things have elements of design.
If you propose the universe was designed, and we can see the results of this designer's work all around us, then this designer would need to exist and would have a purpose. If purpose equates design and the universe's designer has an intrinsic purpose then your reasoning implies this designer needs a designer. So who designed the designer of the universe?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline As I understand it, the school districts would be required to offer it as an elective. Students would not be required to take it. The cover that they're using is it would be a sort of history and culture class, not really a religious exercise. In my view, this is still Constitutionally problematic as the bible has little historical value. In addition, it's likely that the teachers for these classes would likely be Christians themselves and thus would in effect, be prostheletizing. In addition, it might serve as an unintended religious filter that would require non-Christians to "elect" it orpossibly be outed.
Incidentally, I happen to be from the area of Texas that is represented by the proposer of this bill. And in fact, I have relatives that live there. I asked her one time what the hell she did in Pampa TX. She said, "Go to church, have sex, and get blasted. After the first, you need an assload of the other two to get over it."
They are trying to play it off like it is elective. What they are saying is if 15 students sign up for the class then it becomes a required course for everyone else. The 15 students signing up is the part they are saying is elective. And yes they know the teachers will really just be preaching religion and not teaching anything about history of religion.
- Login to post comments
Offline Just a couple of notes as I pass through.
Here is a post with a tutorial on how to use the quote function. This will make it a lot easier to tell who is being quoted and where the quote begins and ends.
Also, black text is really hard to read. For instance, I have to highlight it with my cursor and read it through the highlight.
It would be most appreciated if the default colors of text and highlighting are used.
Thanks!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wouldn't that intelligent designer also need a designer then, for it is intelligent which shows design according to you. Why would intelligence escape this paradox? Is it not complex to have thoughts? Can you prove you have them without your brain.
what paradox are you reffering to? that it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence? is that a paradox? Why do you say the deisnger needs to be designed? if you are implying that a designer needs to be designed then you agree with me that we are designed, why does me being designed and recognizing inteligence make it that my designer needs to be designed? you will have to explain the question again. Why can their be no designer with the designer being designed, where is the logic to this inference? explain why a designer needs to be designed, if you explain it, then u accept that we are designed.
You have not shown that you simply assumed it. We can infer design because we are intelligent, we are intelligent because we were designed?
i made a logical inference, as many scientist do to come to conlusions, yes we can infer deisgn becasue we are inteligent, when did i say we are inteligent solely becasue we were designed? that is not my inference, my inference is that as inteligent beings we can recognize inteligence, which is apperent in the universe.
I didn't say the laws in and of themselves are random, but the predeterminer of the laws. Let us take the multi verse as an idea for this. In every single verse are a different random set of laws. The fact that we are here contemplating it is only evidence that this particular universe has the constant laws that allow for such a behavior to happen. In some other verse it would be impossible for matter to stay consistent and as such we couldn't be discussing it in that verse.
why is the predeterminer of the laws random? thats an assumption you have with no basis, also what leads you to belive that their are differant laws in each verse of a multiverse? thats another assumption you are making with no reason. show me these differant laws you speak of that exist in a differant verse. anyways, if we are using the word uni-verse, that implies all the verses in the multiverse, so our universe is a concoction of all the verses that exists within it, so the laws that we observe in this universe are obviously coenciding with the laws of the other verses.
- Login to post comments
Offline You propose a design, much in the same way Ray does in the debate. You qualify this design in similar terms. The complexity of the rock, humans, the solar system entails “purpose” and that purpose belongs to the universe which is by the way a factory conveniently enough.
has nothing to do with the intrisnic complexity of the rock, you are missing the point, do you agree with me that their is one logical end to all truths? their isnt 2 truths existing at the same time becasue they would be the same and you could classify them as 1. So I am going to ask you a question and just give me a straight answer,
Your walking down a path, you come upon a shoe making factory, you observe the factory, is the factory designed?
its not a hard question, its easy to answer, you have to use your human reason, and hell, use your coveted "occoms Razor", and give me a plain answer as if we are not even having this argument.
now after you answer that question
Here is another one.
Say for the sake of argument that you are outside the universe looking in. using your human reason, the same reason that gave you the conlusion that the factory was indeed designed, now apply that reasoning to the universe, was the universe designed from this perspective?
If you answer no, explain what the reasoning was that casued you to say, yes the factory was designed and no the universe was not, show me with plain reason why your assumption would be differant in each situation.
Factories without recognizable component parts, assume design without any actual designer in mind. It seems you are trying to strip the fat from Ray’s assertions in the debate only to make your own assertions here with a sufficiently watered down version so that you can’t get pinned to anything. All of this “proof”, whether that be Ray’s, yours, or even the more eloquent Sara’s, remains assertions sans any support. Sorry.
My proof is the use of human reason to make a deduction, why is my inference not supported by reason, explain to me why my reasoning is wrong, you can not just tell me something "your theory has no support" i can say that too, why does the theory have no support?
factories without recognizable component parts???? what factory is that? becasue the universes components parts are glaringly obvious, stars, planets, the sheild that protects us from the suns rays from a spinning ball of metal in the core of the earth, all these components of the universal factory are easily identified and labeled for their purpose to the entire universal function.
Assuming a design with no actual designer in mind? why do i need to have a designer in mind before i recognize the design? wouldnt it be the other way around? i recognize that this thing is designed so their must be a designer, then you would seek out the "designer in mind" after yo have deduced that indeed something is designed, why seek out a designer if you do not see anything that is designed? your logic is backwards.
sorry
- Login to post comments
Offline this object as it were implies creation by man
so, "man" created the object right? what is man? is man a process in the universal fucntion? yes man is. At any level you look at it the universe is going to be declared to be a designer, man designs things, man is a proccess of the universe, procceses of the universe are intrisnic to the universe as they are bonded together by the physcial laws, therefore the universe indeed designs things. so what disticntion are you making between "man" and the "universe", you will take away from the universe what it has formed, awareness and being, such that are portrayed in you, a process of the universe.
As a theist i understand that man is not one with the universe, he is supernatural, on the other hand, you, dadvocate, imply that all things are material and by implying this you concede that man is indeed an intrisnic working of a "blind universal process" that requires no designer. well the "blind universal process" is indeed inteligent, becasue you and I are intelligent, you are lost in a circle of logic that will nevar make any sense to you, you roam about in a continuois darkness, because you have mentally blocked true reason from being allowed in your mind through a belief that all things are material.
Reconcile this implication dad, is the universe inteligent? like you and me? or is man seperate from the universe in some way?
Using the speed of light and how it “functions” could you please explain what role it serves in the factory of the universe and ultimately how (if indeed this is part of your thesis) an intelligent agent used this “machine” to create us?
the machine was made by the inteligent awareness, it did not use the machine in my thesis, to give you a conception of what the machine was made out of, from nothing, the most similar substance to the physical universe would be anti-matter, it is very similar to how i theorize that matter came into creation, the same way that anti matter annhialates matter, this is similar to how matter was created, from nothing, just reverse the equation. as for speed of light, in the theory of relitivity, light is used as a universal constant, much like us creating a ruler to use as a universal measurement, it is the universal fucntions aware designers ruler, that he used and uses to design the universe, we observe it and it is quite amazing.
thats my theory on the speed of light and its function in the universe, i am using theological thoughts to infer so you might not understand it, as you have mentally blocked out an entire concept of the human mind.
I fear this will be just as lost on you…Fine… It’s apples and oranges, man!
wow i can call things apples and oranges too, then i dont have to explain why i reasoned that out right, its just true becasue i say it, i mean you reasoned out that we are talking about 2 completely differant things, well we are talking about the same things, if you do not understand tell me what you do not understand and i will try to explain it on a plainer way, otherwise stop saying things and not giving any reason, it is one of the most commin idiocies of our world. becasue we are not talking about apples and oranges, we are talking about the existance of an aware intelligence that designed the universe, nothing more and nothing less.
- Login to post comments
Offline dadvocate, i will answer the rest of what yer post entails tommorow as im to tired to even read what u wrote and especialy becasue its in that blak type that is hard as hell to quote.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wouldn't that intelligent designer also need a designer then, for it is intelligent which shows design according to you. Why would intelligence escape this paradox? Is it not complex to have thoughts? Can you prove you have them without your brain.
what paradox are you reffering to? that it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence? is that a paradox? Why do you say the deisnger needs to be designed? if you are implying that a designer needs to be designed then you agree with me that we are designed, why does me being designed and recognizing inteligence make it that my designer needs to be designed? you will have to explain the question again. Why can their be no designer with the designer being designed, where is the logic to this inference? explain why a designer needs to be designed, if you explain it, then u accept that we are designed. That is the paradox I am talking about. Unless you know a loop hole?
I should have been more clear, and for that sorry.
Either intelligence needs a design or design needs intelligence. You say that there is a intelligence that started the process that isn't designed so, under that intelligence doesn't need be designed. Which means we don't need be designed to be intelligent. If you want to try it the other way and say intelligence requires design, then the Designer who is Intelligent would need to thus be designed other wise it could not be intelligent.
You have not shown that you simply assumed it. We can infer design because we are intelligent, we are intelligent because we were designed?
i made a logical inference, as many scientist do to come to conlusions, yes we can infer deisgn becasue we are inteligent, when did i say we are inteligent solely becasue we were designed? that is not my inference, my inference is that as inteligent beings we can recognize inteligence, which is apperent in the universe.
It is not logical as I have stated in my previous paragraph.
I didn't say the laws in and of themselves are random, but the predeterminer of the laws. Let us take the multi verse as an idea for this. In every single verse are a different random set of laws. The fact that we are here contemplating it is only evidence that this particular universe has the constant laws that allow for such a behavior to happen. In some other verse it would be impossible for matter to stay consistent and as such we couldn't be discussing it in that verse.
why is the predeterminer of the laws random? thats an assumption you have with no basis, also what leads you to belive that their are differant laws in each verse of a multiverse? thats another assumption you are making with no reason. show me these differant laws you speak of that exist in a differant verse. anyways, if we are using the word uni-verse, that implies all the verses in the multiverse, so our universe is a concoction of all the verses that exists within it, so the laws that we observe in this universe are obviously coenciding with the laws of the other verses.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline I will ask you the same question if the universe has always existed why not God always existing. Look at our world we live in we have male and female for reproduction our bodies are so complex. If evolution is true prove it there is no proof in the pudding it's just a theory and that's it a theory does not make something a fact. Using the snake as proof of evolution is false read Genesis 3:14 you will find out why the snake slides on it belly
daddymatt, I'll feel embarrassed for you until you're able to do that for yourself. Why? Because I'm feeling embarrassed for myself. I would have quoted that same bible verse at someone when I was a fundy. Now that I know quite a bit about natural history and the process of evolution, I feel embarrassed that I could ever have believed the Genesis story.
So, what is your explanation for legless lizards with completely useless rudimentary limbs...or for the hind limbs of Eocene whales like Basilosaurus?
Remember the story of Archaeoraptor that Kirk tried to peddle as debunking evolution? Well, it led to a rather remarkable find: Microraptor zhaoianus, a feathered dinosaur with flight feathers on its arms AND legs. Wiki Microraptor...that little sucker was cool! Birds are dinosaurs.
On edit: I didn't realize how HUGE this thread has become or how far behind I am...ugh.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi,
Thanks for putting yourselves up for that length of time having to listen to those two! Man, it seemed like it went on forever! And well done on the whole
To me the weakest part of your response was when they brought up ethics and politics. As you know, atheists have many differing views on this so to try and come up with a concluding explanation in a nutshell is I think prone to attack. From Communists to Humanists to Objectivists, each starts from somewhere totally different from each other so I think the best response goes along the lines:
"Very valid question 
How should one ascertain what's right and wrong when you suddenly realize the supernatural 'god thing' you've believed in all your life doesn't exist? The main point is it's a question that suddenly belongs in the realm of rational debate. If you no longer have to take a non-being's word for it, you're now free to ask the questions and to critically analyze. Not everyone comes to the same conclusion in this relatively young field of enquiry of religious-free ethics. Mass abuse by the communist regimes only illustrates that taking mythical beings out of the equation doesn't necessarily mean the right answers land in your lap. The questions can run deep - looking into philosophical derivations for ethics (as objectivists do) or sociological/evolutional (as humanists do). One thing I would recommend as a guideline whilst on your quest: Don't do un to others as you wouldn't like done to yourself. Until you come to your own conclusions, you (and the rest of us) should be fairly safe with that!”
I’m certainly not implying I could have come up with this in a live debate. And really, that kind of phrasing is more suited to messageboard debate than spoken. There may well be answers but the question of ethics, as you said, doesn’t come into proof or disproof of God. You suddenly seemed shaky on ground where the God squad spend most of their preaching hours – and you could see their glee when they sensed they’d managed to pull the argument back to their familiar turf.
Still, thanks for being here and for standing up to people like that. I really haven’t got the patience to deal with that rubbish.
- Login to post comments
Offline Either intelligence needs a design or design needs intelligence. You say that there is a intelligence that started the process that isn't designed so, under that intelligence doesn't need be designed. Which means we don't need be designed to be intelligent. If you want to try it the other way and say intelligence requires design, then the Designer who is Intelligent would need to thus be designed other wise it could not be intelligent.
Like I said, when did I say that we are designed and that is what makes us inteligent? We are not inteligent becasue we are designed, we were designed to be inteligent, you are mixing up cause with purpose.
You say that there is a intelligence that started the process that isn't designed so
when did I say that the inteligence started the proccess that is not designed? the proccess is designed, look around at the evidence for this, look at the periodic table, look how each element is set, even though they are all made of the same matter and energy they have been seperated and turned into "building blocks" , if you came upon a lego house that a small child had made, would you not say that the lego house was deisgned and that it would take some sort of inteligence to deisgn the house and also to desgn the blocks that built the house?
why do you jump from our current situation and try to infer all these attributes about the inligence that is evident in the universe? I am showing you that your own human reason will decide that the universe is indeed designed, its simple to understand, why go beyond this simple contention as you are trying to do to infer that the designer was designed, i am not trying to go that far, merely putting you in the position to answer simple questions that will show you that you can not reason one way, then say in another manner of the same situation that your reasoning gives you a differant conclusion.
and anyways, like i said before, I could theorize that "God" is a infiitaly redesigned structure that exhibits all possible structures therrfore having the appearence of no structure, if you want to have a theological discussion about God this really is not the place to do it when people do not even believe "God" exists, as we can go into much theorizing on God, well at least theists can, athiets might as well theorize how long santas beard is.
my inference is that as inteligent beings we can recognize inteligence,
explain why this is not logical, becasue in your first paragraph I saw no such evidence. you went off on a differant tangent trying to deny this contention, and I do not see your logic.
And from my first statement it is neither clear if design requires intelligence or intelligence requires design. You cannot have it both ways its a paradox.
like i said, im not debating that sentence that you call a paradox, thats your contention, give me an example of this paradox, and maybe i can understand more clearly what u are trying to say about it.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a deliberately ambiguous statement that applies gaps for god to fit into, in the same way as statements like “evolution is just a “theory” are tacitly correct and incorrect in the same breath.
so what is evolution, is it a theory or a proven fact? why is it correct and incorrect? which is it, you can not have both, i dont debate evolution, anything that I find evidence for I will use my human reasoning to reach a conclusion as we all should, when people ignore evidence, such as design in nature, you become as stupid as the people that say evolution isnt true casue the "bible says so", athiets love to play dumb.
A “function” implies “purpose” as you are wont to remind us—and in your case it seems, though you avoid the commitment outright, that this “purpose” is intelligently derived. It would be great if you could just come out and say whether or not you think intelligence is part of this discussion we are having. That might help a lot in getting where it is you are coming from with respect to function and factories.
i am using the term function as in mathematical reasoning, just becasue the word also can be used in differant ways which support my idea doesnt mean I am using it in that manner, when did I say solely becasue the universe has a fucntion that it has a purpose, purpose is shown through design and fucntion (as in the other sense) when I am calling the universe a function I am pointing out that it is mathematically set up in a manner that can not be changed, whats goes into the fucntion will come out the same each time, as in mathematical reasoning.
In fact, the function is merely the role the crocodile plays that scientists have objectively observed OVER TIME. In this case, the function might stay the same as we understand it for many, many years. Later discoveries might turn significant elements of this “function” on their heads and come up with new, altogether confusing explanations for the role or function that the crocodile has in
ehhh why did you capitalize "over time" i do not see why that needs to be capitalized or is even relevant to the observation of function (in the sense that you are implying) so what your logically telling me is that if humans can give differant conclusions about rhe fucntion of a crocidile in nature that it implies their is no function at all???? haha nice try. the concept of fucntion is inherent and intrsnic to the object being observed to have fucntion, so your analogy is just stupid.
is that there is no reason to assume an intelligent function for our universe because it does not appear to function like a factory at all,
haha, the universe does not appeare to function like a factory at all???????
resources = the basic building blocks (periodic table)
building = space time continuim
machinery = gravity, 4 fudnmental forces, laws of motion.
end product = just look around at all the "end products" humans animals plants, stars, air, water, fire.
haha, as usual the athiests will play "der de der der" i dont see what yer saying, if you say that the universe is "not like a factory" as i have just shown the the components if a factory and desginated each one to apply to the universe.
Tell me what the universe is like then, or wait, youll just say
"a duh duh, i dunno man, me to stupid to make assertion, me like cave man"
If one looks at the cosmos and sees it for what it is, not what we want it to be, one will see that all humans have is evidence of is a function in isolation that operates based on laws we are only truly beginning to understand, laws that could still potentially change in our conception drastically within the next 20 years. And when and if they do, well that is not a sentient being we created in our dark ages making this happen; it is merely us coming to a point in time where we understand what already exists better than we did before. It really is that simple and than poignant.
haha as usual an argument from ignorance instead of a reasoned out conclusion comes from an athiest, how many times can you pull this shit without feeling like a retard? so what yer saying is this
"i dont understand the universe, and i lack the reasoning to infer conclusions based upon my human mind, so ill just say that noone knows anything, were to stupid!!!!!"
sorry but ill stick with my reasoning to come to conclusions instead of deleting entire files of the brain to be happy with my view of the universe, as you have done.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I assume then that the rubber for the shoes, which itself is processed represents another factory and thus another universe? This would hold for the leather as well, which is also organic matter having first been living tissue and then processed to be used in shoes. How many universes are you espousing here? Remember, implications, baby! Aren’t they a bitch?!
haha so your saying that within a factory their are not differant fucntions being proccesed out? yer saying that each fucntion of a factory needs a factory to do it? why not just one factory completing all the tasks to reach the "end product" , yer logic sucks.
the universal proccess or "factory" is just like the shoe factory, even if I do not know where the resources of the factory came from (which i theorize all matter was created from anti matter) I will still make the same conclusion that the factory is designed.
so no these implications are not a bitch, and they do not hold any ground on my contention that the universe is designed.
Can you? Can you explain how a bird containing DNA code for teeth jives with your inferred truth about our universe factory?
Part of the universal fucntion of "evolution" includes the planning of creatures to go from one form to the other, take computer programs, their are tons of written code within computer programs that go unused, becasue during the programming phase some parts of the design were used and then not used after the program was finished, so why would the end result plan of an animal not be the same? and anyways, when you look at DNA your not just looking at the plan for that creature at a single moment, but the continuous plan that it took to build the creature into its present form. isnt the theory that birds were evolved from dinosaurs anyway? so really i dont get yer point or how it is "damning"
What are you going to compare your universe factory theory to/ What criteria do you have that you can apply to this thesis?
I am comparing the universe to a factory, why? becasue we can all agree that a factory requires inteligent design to exist. my criterion is human reasoning, ill compare the universe factory to an actualy factory here on earth, whats so hard about that?
There is no need for a factory for this process as with any others. It simply is what it is.
wow, it simply is what it is, how profound, a cup is simply a cup, a tree is simply a tree, how philisophical you have become, i mean you make so much sense, it simply is what it is, ahhh i totally understand now, you have shown me the light
it is simply what it is.
sounds like something a thiest would say
nice way to try to say somethign with saying nothing at all, daaadddy.
oh and another thing, dont bring yer life stories into this, i dont care about yer emotional distrsses and you calling out to God, has nothign to do with reasoning out a designer of the universe.
but you do agree with me that we could theorize that God is "nameless and faceless" especially to those without Eyes of reason to view "God"
- Login to post comments
Offline As I say before, the fact that we exist alone out in space in as tiny a capacity as your brain can imagine, this makes us practically speaking insignificant. If you doubt this, get a can of Raid and spray it on a colony of ants roaming in your kitchen. Do you care if they die? Do you care whether or not they know you are the agent of their demise?
funny that you bring this up, even though it has nothing to do with our argument, i will entertain your question.
I actually do care about how ants die, when I was a boat washer, i saved many many ants from deaths of drowning,i would pick each one out individually and put them on dry land, becasue it was in my nature to do this, i cant save every ant and i eat meat for food, but I will not go and "spray raid" on ants unless that is the only way to rid them from an infenstation that had some sort of bad implication that warrented their destruction, sometimes we must do that which we do not want to do, its a fact of life. So yes I do care about any creature dieing, i guess i can infer that you could care less about animals and their deaths, as you have just shown me to be true.
This simple fact gives my statement of our insignificance within the universe all the weight it needs. Given that we appear to be alone out in this part of the universe, despite the inferences of UFO pundits, provides ample reason to discount our overall importance.
haha your "simple fact" that i just proved wrong?just admit that significance is in the reason of the beholder, and end it at that.
In this case, size matters, and when coupled with volume, we rank pretty low on the scale. Now, you have many questions of mine to answer on top of addressing my aswsers to you. FYI. I’ve just CLASHED with your contentions by the way
i have tried to answer as many of yuor questions that i saw, my contention still holds ground as you have done nothing to refute my theory, some were loaded with unconsequential information when it comes to reasining out a designer, your personal emotions are such a rediculous attempt i cant even belive you used them, its funny to me that you are now going to those lenghts at which in the deabte between the RRS and the christians, they were not aloud to use, just an observation.
- Login to post comments
Offline
i am using the term function as in mathematical reasoning, just becasue the word also can be used in differant ways which support my idea doesnt mean I am using it in that manner, when did I say solely becasue the universe has a fucntion that it has a purpose, purpose is shown through design and fucntion (as in the other sense) when I am calling the universe a function I am pointing out that it is mathematically set up in a manner that can not be changed, whats goes into the fucntion will come out the same each time, as in mathematical reasoning.
Right, but these meanings can be interchanged. Each part of the mathematical function has a purpose in that mathematical function. Their function is to be part of the mathematical function as a whole. Take away any part of the components of the function and you get a different result. Split the function into sub parts, and you can calculate parts of the function separately. A mathematical function without any components is nothing.
Also, if the universe factory you're describing cannot be changed, are you not implying that the designer of the universe factory is a deity? Designers of Shoe factories change the factory so it products different styles of shoes. Car manufactures change the production line to manufacture different models. Why can't the universe factory designer change the universe factory?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline Each part of the mathematical function has a purpose in that mathematical function. Their function is to be part of the mathematical function as a whole.
you are stating an obvious fact, why?
Take away any part of the components of the function and you get a different result.
show me an example of this in the known universe, where something is "taken out" of the universal function, matter is neither created not destroyed, as well as energy.
Split the function into sub parts, and you can calculate parts of the function separately
yeah , its called the realm of science, us humans have done this alot, chemistry, biology, physics.
A mathematical function without any components is nothing.
and? what are you trying to say here? what does this have to do with any issue at hand? theirs that billy madison coming out in you again.
Also, if the universe factory you're describing cannot be changed, are you not implying that the designer of the universe factory is a deity?
is the designer a deity? you tell me.
Designers of Shoe factories change the factory so it products different styles of shoes. Car manufactures change the production line to manufacture different models. Why can't the universe factory designer change the universe factory?
Can the designer of the universal function change the universe factory? sounds to theological of a question for athiests, lets stick to the realm of reason and human observations.
- Login to post comments
Offline Either intelligence needs a design or design needs intelligence. You say that there is a intelligence that started the process that isn't designed so, under that intelligence doesn't need be designed. Which means we don't need be designed to be intelligent. If you want to try it the other way and say intelligence requires design, then the Designer who is Intelligent would need to thus be designed other wise it could not be intelligent.
Like I said, when did I say that we are designed and that is what makes us inteligent? We are not inteligent becasue we are designed, we were designed to be inteligent, you are mixing up cause with purpose.
More implied I guess. Our minds are physical and a complex structure and you implied that as complex as the universe is, it must have been designed thus our minds had to be designed. So what you are trying to say is intelligence is outside of design that it can exist with the complexity and with the ability to create a design, but not in and of itself need to be designed. You say everything is designed except for this intelligence, which is simple? yet complex enough to understand and design. If intelligence need not be designed why would anything else need a designing? Why is intelligence valid with out design but the universe not?
You say that there is a intelligence that started the process that isn't designed so
when did I say that the inteligence started the proccess that is not designed? the proccess is designed, look around at the evidence for this, look at the periodic table, look how each element is set, even though they are all made of the same matter and energy they have been seperated and turned into "building blocks" , if you came upon a lego house that a small child had made, would you not say that the lego house was deisgned and that it would take some sort of inteligence to deisgn the house and also to desgn the blocks that built the house?
why do you jump from our current situation and try to infer all these attributes about the inligence that is evident in the universe? I am showing you that your own human reason will decide that the universe is indeed designed, its simple to understand, why go beyond this simple contention as you are trying to do to infer that the designer was designed, i am not trying to go that far, merely putting you in the position to answer simple questions that will show you that you can not reason one way, then say in another manner of the same situation that your reasoning gives you a differant conclusion.
and anyways, like i said before, I could theorize that "God" is a infiitaly redesigned structure that exhibits all possible structures therrfore having the appearence of no structure, if you want to have a theological discussion about God this really is not the place to do it when people do not even believe "God" exists, as we can go into much theorizing on God, well at least theists can, athiets might as well theorize how long santas beard is.
<side note>Are your misspellings intentional? I am just curious, I am bad at spelling and grammar.<end side note> Reading what I wrote in that one part sentence doesn't make sense when I look at it now either.. I was trying to say that "Some intelligence started the process, yet that intelligence for some reason didn't need to be designed, it just was/is. So why can intelligence exist without it being designed, but the universe for some reason cannot exist without it being designed? And I can theorize that "god" appears to have no structure because it doesn't'. Whey would I not be able to theorize about god? Like I have said before it is possible that a god exists, the ones presented however... I can make any theory I want, but unless it has some sort of substance to it that distinguishes reality from fantasy, I shouldn't believe in it.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
If purpose equals design, then what about God? Does he not have a purpose to create? If nothing exists without God, and we exist because he created us, then his purpose must be to create. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. So, who designed God?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
How do bacteria live? How about simpler organisms like worms? How does a baby know to nurse when it has no practical experience? By instinct.
Given an ape with only instinct and an ape with instinct and superior intelligence, it's obvious who will come up on top. The smarter apes will learn to make better use of the surrounding resources. They can ward off attacks of apes with lesser intelligence. This gives them a huge advantage that tips the scales in their favor.
Those who do not share these traits will be out hunted, out gathered and find themselves in short supply. As such, they cannot no longer compete with their more intelligent brethren and either die of starvation or simply do not reproduce as often. Eventually the less intellegent apes will die off.
why would the apes that are smarter not just live with the ones that are not so smart? what law causes them to "outgather" the other ones, their are many symbiotic relationships(that is ones that coexist together) in our natural enviroment, whats makes other species die off? it is not becasue they have better instincts or the whole world would be full of oranisms that have evolved past their previous incarnations, but this is false as we still have the most basic bacteria still existing today, why has it not evolved over time like everything else as you insist is what happens? why are their still basic lifeforms that existed millions of years ago? should it not have evolved also? why have the less inteligent links to us died off yet? will their eventually be no more apes becasue they are dumb? why do apes still exist? yuor inferences do not lead to any conclusion that makes sense, sorry.
If purpose equals design, then what about God? Does he not have a purpose to create? If nothing exists without God, and we exist because he created us, then his purpose must be to create. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. So, who designed God?
honestly read that againa and explain it so it makes sense, because you are jumping from topic to topic with no rational sense that i am observing, please rethink it and state it again.
Both are designed. One is designed by the process of natural selection and the other by man.
Can you tell the difference between a breast and a bottle? If you look at a living organism and a man made object, can you tell that one is an organism and the other manufactured? I imagine that you can. That is because they fall into clearly different realms. One is organic and the other built, molded, pressed, etc.
Now here is where it gets interesting. Compare a man-made object to a natural object with similar function. For instance, consider the human eye vs. a mechanical eye. If you assume that the human eye is designed by natural processes, you would expect it to have certain design deficiencies. You would expect a mechanical eye, designed with intention, to be superior. On the other hand, if the human eye is designed by the greatest designer in the universe, then nothing man designs should ever approach its perfection.
So what do we see? The human eye can only see a very narrow spectrum of light. Mechanical eyes can see a much broader spectrum. The human eye degenerates and loses its ability to focus. The mechanical eye is far more sturdy. The human eye can only see a very limited distance away and requires that objects be at least a minimum distance away. Mechanical eyes can see much closer and much further away.
So the human eye appears much more likely to be the imperfect best effort of natural processes than the design of a perfect creator deity.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
How does which posts I choose to respond have anything to do with answering the question I posed?
When you claim that God exists and played a role in our creation, you imply that God has a purpose. In fact, the mere existence of God would imply he has some purpose, even if we couldn't comprehend it. If purpose equates design and God has a purpose, then your reasoning implies that God needs a designer. So who is this designer?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.