The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance  (Read 42732 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
justaskin

I find you the only really rational person in this thread and the others just stubborn sticking closely to their halowed faith of disbelief. Yes it takes real faith to believe your existence has no lasting meaning and in the end of it all nothing really matters

The others who say they are rational in my opinion are just stubbornly sticking like glue to what they do not want to believe, as of yet they have not come up with even one reason, fact scientific or other why an ID could not have created the universe

Although I admittedly gave reasons why an Intelligent Designere might have created the universe, I know these reasons are circumstantial

Science must meet philosophical or religious questions as they explore deeper and deeper into the strange unknown dimensions of physics and science. 

And unlike the great intellects on this thread who just continue to disagree without backing their argument's with positive facts and rebuttals of why it is/was impossible for something infinitely Greater than them to have created a universe suitable to sustain life 

To my understanding everything has a reason and if we do not know the reason for it, then we should do our damnedest and go and find it

Alan
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Justaskin - thanks for bringing this back on topic.

Alan - are you ignoring what others post, forgetting them quickly, or just not reading them?

The idea of an ID is just as valid as the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Great Arkleseizure - are you happy to admit that they might exist too?  If not, then why are you cherry-picking your explanation?  As soon as you acknowledge an intelligent designer, you must also acknowledge all of the other unfalsifiable explanations for the existence of the universe, as they are all of equal validity.

We have tried to point out that postulating a designer merely adds to the problem, and does not solve anything. As I, and others have said, we do not know what caused the universe to come into existence, but adding a designer to that means that we do not know what caused the universe to come insto existance and we do not know what caused the designer to come into existence, and we are forced to ask why it has not gotten involved since and many more questions.

Do you realise the hypocrisy in claiming that others are "just stubbornly sticking like glue to what they do not want to believe".  There is no reason for anyone to believe in a creator, yet you stubbornly stick like glue to what you want to believe, and for some reason expect us to do so as well!

Quote
Yes it takes real faith to believe your existence has no lasting meaning and in the end of it all nothing really matters
Ah, this old chestnut.  The false argument that both sides of this discussion are a form of religion, and so equally valid.  Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not a faith, we simply do not know.  As stated above, postulating a designer for the universe merely adds to the things we do not know.

Quote
And unlike the great intellects on this thread who just continue to disagree without backing their argument's with positive facts and rebuttals of why it is/was impossible for something infinitely Greater than them to have created a universe suitable to sustain life

We have given you rebuttals, explained things with logic and objectivity, and you seem to have ignored them.  In fact, I don't think anyone has said it's impossible - just that as it cannot be proven, has no evidence in it's favour and will add complication to the problem by creating more questions than it answers, it makes no logical sense to postulate it.  We may just as well discuss the physical possibility of the matrix, or of us being the imagination of an author.

Quote
To my understanding everything has a reason and if we do not know the reason for it, then we should do our damnedest and go and find it

But why should everything have a reason?  The sheer fact that you are starting from that viewpoint means that we are limited in what we can understand and comprehend.  Far better to open our minds and start out with the assumption that there is no reason, then as we learn a reason may develop.

I agree that we should try to learn whatever we can about our universe, but this is only hampered by assuming unprovable things, and starting off on the wrong foot.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Can anyone imagine nothing at all existing?
 I can't.
If no one was living on earth would it still exist?
Try to think of nothing existing,,,can you?
Quantum science talks of paralell universe. I can imagine that.
From nothing something evolved/ or was created....
it relies on our existing understanding, our set of beliefs.
My belief is that there is something more than creation or evolution.
We just haven't found it yet.
But, I'm sure all this, our wonderful universe just didn't happen for no reason without some sort of intelligent reason that we may never find.
everything that can happen will happen.
"adaptive mutations"nature
Quote
How did it get here? That is the biggest question in biology. A group of bacteria called mycoplasmas are, as far as we know, the simplest self-replicating organisms. Yet they are extraordinarily complex. One of them has recently had its entire genome sequenced: four hundred and seventy genes strung out along 580,070 DNA bases. Surely such a structure could not have arisen by the chance coming together of chemicals sloshing through the primordial soup? The astronomer Fred Hoyle has described the likelihood of random forces generating life as equivalent to the chances that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747. The world is just not big enough to evolve life if it relied entirely on chance. Finding plausible conditions that generate the biochemicals necessary for life is hard enough. Stringing those biochemicals together to make life is vastly more difficult. Yet nature seems to have accomplished this feat very early in our planet�s history.


http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Outline.htm

 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Quote
Intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking  based on the observable axiom that can be used to analyze scientific data. This site promotes intelligent design because it is in many ways superior to the theory of evolution.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile

   Far better to open our minds and start out with the assumption that there is no reason, then as we learn a reason may develop.
I am all for an open mind and yes if it turns out to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else then so be it.I close my mind to nothing.Is there a designer yes that is a possibility.Did the universe just pop into existence at the big bang yes, and currently that is the popular theory.Has the universe been here for ever,possibly but it has lost favor of late.Are we just one of many universes,there are scientists that think so.Is all we see just one big hologram,probably not.
I find it strange when I read here and other places of eminent scientists who will not continence the possibility of anything before the big bang.They in effect have a closed mind with regard to that area.
And yes BenV the more questions we ask the more questions there will be.I am sure all the great scientists of our past never said don't ask that question it will only lead to more questions than it answers.
I would be lead to believe that everything has a reason it would seem pointless to have something with no reason for it.Have we ever found anything in science yet that has no reason?.

Cheers
justaskin
 
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Just a short question.
What would the difference be between an intelligent designer and the Anthropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
And yes BenV the more questions we ask the more questions there will be.I am sure all the great scientists of our past never said don't ask that question it will only lead to more questions than it answers.
Fair enough - the point I was trying to make is that the idea of an intelligent designer creates entirely untestable questions - it takes the research away from the scientific viewpoint and into the purely philosophical.  That's fine if you're looking for a philosophy of the universe, but not if you're looking for scientific ideas.

Quote
I would be lead to believe that everything has a reason it would seem pointless to have something with no reason for it.Have we ever found anything in science yet that has no reason?.
Why should anything have a reason behind it?  'Reasons' tend to be things that we put on after the fact. There's no reason why hydrogen atoms combine in a star, or water molecules evaporate and then condense again to fall as rain - there are causes, but no reason.  Everything breaks down to chemistry and physics, where there may be causes, but there is no 'reason'.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
We have given you rebuttals, explained things with logic and objectivity, and you seem to have ignored them.  In fact, I don't think anyone has said it's impossible - just that as it cannot be proven, has no evidence in it's favour and will add complication to the problem by creating more questions than it answers, it makes no logical sense to postulate it.  We may just as well discuss the physical possibility of the matrix, or of us being the imagination of an author.

I will go back and reread all your posts to see if you have given even one logical reason why the idea of an ID is stupid. Even Einstein did not go this far and admitted there are things about the universe we will never understand

Alan


Ben I have gone back and reread all your posts on this topic, and I am sad to say you have not yet given even one reason to disbelieve in the possibility of an ID

Alan asked you!

"Give me your one perfectly good reason to disbelieve in an ID?"

BenV Replied

Quote
There is no evidence for one, it raises more questions than it answers, it requires one to make certain illogical assumptions that cannot be proved/disproved.  There's three very good reasons for you there.

It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.



If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.


This reads like one of Nostradamus prophecies totally ambiguous

In computer jargon we call that a loop error and the only way to resolve it is by rebooting



Why do you continue to say you want to kill this thread??


Ben you keep saying you want to lock this thread while it is still very much alive and generating great interest. I will resist this as I have been a member of this forum as long as you have (and maybe, maybe I just might be as smart as you)

Quote
If an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?

Ben of course I would accept that but alas alas alas I am still waiting for you to post even one logical reason why the idea of an Intelligent Designer could not be at least considered

Alan
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 15:23:47 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
We have given you rebuttals, explained things with logic and objectivity, and you seem to have ignored them.  In fact, I don't think anyone has said it's impossible - just that as it cannot be proven, has no evidence in it's favour and will add complication to the problem by creating more questions than it answers, it makes no logical sense to postulate it.  We may just as well discuss the physical possibility of the matrix, or of us being the imagination of an author.

I will go back and reread all your posts to see if you have given even one logical reason why the idea of an ID is stupid. Even Einstein did not go this far and admitted there are things about the universe we will never understand

Alan

Ben I have gone back and reread all your posts on this topic, and I am sad to say you have not yet given even one reason to disbelieve in the possibility of an ID

Alan asked you!

"Give me your one perfectly good reason to disbelieve in an ID?"

BenV Replied

Quote
There is no evidence for one, it raises more questions than it answers, it requires one to make certain illogical assumptions that cannot be proved/disproved.  There's three very good reasons for you there.

It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.

If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.
Alan - you may not believe it, but there are several good reasons not to believe in an intelligent designer in that quote above.  You're having trouble accepting it because you want to believe in a designer. 

What it comes to is you asking me to disprove something disprovable.  Obviously, it can't be done - but that doesn't mean one should believe in everything that can't be disproved.

Quote
This reads like one of Nostradamus prophecies totally ambiguous
What nonsense - I was pointing out that all you are doing by proposing a creator is adding further unsolvable complications.  Nothing ambiguous about it.

Quote
Why do you continue to say you want to kill this thread??

Ben you keep saying you want to lock this thread while it is still very much alive and generating great interest.
Alan, seriously, have you read the posts? I have given the reason at least twice in this thread.  This is not the place to discuss biological evolution vs design - it's off topic and discussed elsewhere.  When this thread looks like that's what it will become, I suggest locking it.

Notice how I haven't locked it? That's because it was pulled back on topic.  There's no development though, is there?  Some want to believe in a designer so they do, others see no evidence or logical reason to do so, so they do not - there's your error loop.

Quote
In computer jargon we call that a loop error and the only way to resolve it is by rebooting
Or locking the pointless discussion?

Quote

Quote
If an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?

Ben of course I would accept that but alas alas alas I am still waiting for you to post even one logical reason why the idea of an Intelligent Designer could not be at least considered

Alan


Okay, we can consider it, but it must be considered along with equally valid ideas, such as the universe being sneezed out by the great arkleseizure, being a computer simulation, being complete imagination, a dream, a cartoon,   fairy magic, black magic, white magic, the power source for a multi-dimensional calculator, the heart of a dragon, a connection of dreams about ghosts, a spillage of higher dimensional tea, the delusion of a penguin...

Do you see how these are all equally as valid as your intelligent designer, once you remove the idea that something has to be provable to be considered?

Quote
I will go back and reread all your posts to see if you have given even one logical reason why the idea of an ID is stupid.
Now, looking back through my comments, you won't find anywhere where I said it was stupid.

You found me pointing out that it is illogical, is equally valid as spaghetti monsters and Douglas Adams' science-fiction-comedy, and that it asks more questions than it answers.

Quote
Even Einstein did not go this far and admitted there are things about the universe we will never understand
You also seem, yet again, to have ignored what I ave actually written, as I also pointed out that nobody said it's impossible, and I have said that we do not know certain things and may never do so - this puts me in the same camp as Einstein.

Quote
I will resist this as I have been a member of this forum as long as you have (and maybe, maybe I just might be as smart as you)
This is totally irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out that you have not been here as long as I have, and I never laid claim to be smarter than anyone.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
The astronomer Fred Hoyle has described the likelihood of random force[s generating life as equivalent to the chances that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.

This is a straw man argument, a favourite of creationists. And there's also another argument from authority in there, too.

Thing is, that's not how evolution works.

If the parts of the junkyard could reproduce and mutate like actual living things, and the selection pressures gave advantage to something like a 747, then it goes from astronomically unlikely to inevitable.

Another exactly simlar popular straw man argument is this:

"If you took a watch and smashed it to bits with a hammer, then shook it, no matter how much you shake it it's not going to re-assemble itself is it."

If these arguments seem logical to you, then you plain don't understand evolution. Please watch this video:
it explains in detail how a broken watch, if it was able to reproduce and mutate, WILL become a functioning watch again given the selection pressures are right.

And Alan, do you even read our posts?
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 17:46:25 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Alan, please stop using Einstein to support your argument. Not only is it illogical to do so, but Einstein did not actually believe in anything like an Intelligent Designer or deity. He was an atheist in the scientific sense. He simply felt great wonder at the incredible physical nature of our universe, and sometimes described that in pseudo-religious terms. Spinozas's god is actually nothing like a real godlike entity.



Face it. Your entire argument is flawed, based on ignorance and bad logic. Please stop wasting your time and ours unless you can produce a more sophisticated argument.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2009 07:32:01 by _Stefan_ »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile

  There's no reason why hydrogen atoms combine in a star, or water molecules evaporate and then condense again to fall as rain - there are causes, but no reason.  Everything breaks down to chemistry and physics, where there may be causes, but there is no 'reason'.

I don't know about hydrogen atoms but as far as water goes I would imagine the reason it does what it does is to get water from were it gathers,oceans,rivers.lakes and the like.to the land were it is used to support life.Are reason and observation not one and the same thing.Is science not mainly based on observation that leads to the question why(reason).

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Stefan , Stefan Stefan

Quote
Face it. Your entire argument is flawed, based on ignorance and bad logic. Please stop wasting your time and ours unless you can produce a more sophisticated argument
.

You continue to think the only good logic is your logic and then tell me what I have already stated in this thread that Einstein was an atheist

Produce dear Stefan just one logical reason from your awesomely logical mind , exactly why there could not be an ID

BenV


Quote
It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.

If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.

Alan - you may not believe it, but there are several good reasons not to believe in an intelligent designer in that quote above.  You're having trouble accepting it because you want to believe in a designer

And you Ben are also having trouble accepting that there just might be an ID

What I find perplexing about your statements about the universe being made this way or that why if there were an ID is the you a tiny minute entity on a tiny infinitesimal planet, on a small galaxy somewhere in a lonely corner of the univere can have the gumption to state what an entity of infinite intellect and power will do or not do.

If it exists it will do exactly what it wants to do without your or mine or anyones help


Guys when I look at the physics of nature and the universe I see they can be explained by logic, the language of logic mathematics flow through chemistry, astronomy, particle physics and all the other segments of science.

Now a universe sustained by mathematical logic to me, little puny Alan suggests that a great mathematician might be behind all we observe around us and assume is reality
Alan

What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


Quotes

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Case against an Intelligent Designer

•  It is simply not true that science does not address all Aristotelian causes, whenever design needs to be explained;

•  While irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design, these are not the only two possibilities, and living organisms are not irreducibly complex (e.g., see Shanks and Joplin 1999);

•  The complexity-specification criterion is actually met by natural selection, and cannot therefore provide a way to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent design;

•  If supernatural design exists at all (but where is the evidence or compelling logic?), this is certainly not of the kind that most religionists would likely subscribe to, and it is indistinguishable from the technology of a very advanced civilization.

The Short Answer: Intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to determine if some objects in the natural world were designed through recognizing and detecting the types of information known to be produced by the intelligent agents when they act.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hey all you friendly folk out there

I will now give just one reasons why there might be no need for an ID

How do we know something is designed? Mt. Rushmore vs the Grand Canyon. A house on the beach vs the shoreline. Do we not contrast it with things that are not man-made? If we say nature itself is designed, then where is the non-designed stuff to compare? If we say nature is not designed locally, on a small scale then why must it be designed on a large scale?


Alan

 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
You really don't understand what we tell you, and you don't understand the science that you're arguing against. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Those are not just my standards of logic and evidence. They are shared by every scientifically minded person who has the rationality to resist magical-thinking. Research "logical fallacies" and you'll find that you have committed many of them in this thread.

I will repeat:

Put aside your biases and learn more about the science you criticize. When you really understand it, you'll have no need for ID. On the unlikely chance that your views remain unchanged, you'll have to provide much more sophisticated arguments with supporting evidence than you so far have.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Stefan

And the reverse, to me trying to reason with you is like trying to dialogue with a lamp post  :)

I gave a logical reason for NOT believing in an ID in my last post did you read that ?

Enlarge the image, it it just a little fun really  ;D






« Last Edit: 18/03/2009 09:33:40 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile

  There's no reason why hydrogen atoms combine in a star, or water molecules evaporate and then condense again to fall as rain - there are causes, but no reason.  Everything breaks down to chemistry and physics, where there may be causes, but there is no 'reason'.

I don't know about hydrogen atoms but as far as water goes I would imagine the reason it does what it does is to get water from were it gathers,oceans,rivers.lakes and the like.to the land were it is used to support life.Are reason and observation not one and the same thing.Is science not mainly based on observation that leads to the question why(reason).

Cheers
justaskin
This could just be us nit-picking about language, but I don't think water does anything for a 'reason' as in an ultimate aim.  The fact that water does this is good, as it supports life, but that's not why it does it, it's a consequence.  There's no reason why some water molecules would become a lake, or a river, they are caused to do it phy physical and chemical causes, and the consequence is the lake.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile

And you Ben are also having trouble accepting that there just might be an ID

What I find perplexing about your statements about the universe being made this way or that why if there were an ID is the you a tiny minute entity on a tiny infinitesimal planet, on a small galaxy somewhere in a lonely corner of the univere can have the gumption to state what an entity of infinite intellect and power will do or not do.

If it exists it will do exactly what it wants to do without your or mine or anyones help

Alan, you really need to start reading and understanding out posts - this is not what I said.  I can't believe you are forcing me to type this again.

Quote
You also seem, yet again, to have ignored what I ave actually written, as I also pointed out that nobody said it's impossible, and I have said that we do not know certain things and may never do so
...
Okay, we can consider it, but it must be considered along with equally valid ideas, such as the universe being sneezed out by the great arkleseizure, being a computer simulation, being complete imagination, a dream, a cartoon,   fairy magic, black magic, white magic, the power source for a multi-dimensional calculator, the heart of a dragon, a connection of dreams about ghosts, a spillage of higher dimensional tea, the delusion of a penguin...

Do you see how these are all equally as valid as your intelligent designer, once you remove the idea that something has to be provable to be considered?

So the one being arrogant here is you, to assume that your unprovable designer is somehow more likely than any other unprovable hypothesis.

Quote
Guys when I look at the physics of nature and the universe I see they can be explained by logic, the language of logic mathematics flow through chemistry, astronomy, particle physics and all the other segments of science.

Now a universe sustained by mathematical logic to me, little puny Alan suggests that a great mathematician might be behind all we observe around us and assume is reality
Alan

It's not a universe sustained by mathematical logic at all.  Maths is a tool for us to use to understand the world, and indeed universe around us.  AS such, it's an illogical leap to assume a 'great mathematician' - you may as well assume the matrix, or the energy source for a calculator idea.

Quote
What is the theory of intelligent design?
...
The Short Answer: Intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to determine if some objects in the natural world were designed through recognizing and detecting the types of information known to be produced by the intelligent agents when they act.
I don't know where you got that from, but intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory - it's an untestable hypothesis based on the poor and unprovable assumption of a deity.

Alan, if you are to accept this, you must accept literally any other explanation about the origins of the universe.  The mumblings of a madman and the scribblings of a science-fiction author are as provable as your idea of an intelligent designer.  If you abandon this notion and look instead for evidence and logic, the universe is just as beatuiful and amazing as before, only know you have opened your mind to the enormous possibilities that science offers.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
So the one being arrogant here is you, to assume that your unprovable designer is somehow more likely than any other unprovable hypothesis.

Ben I am not arrogant although it might appear as if I were from black print, in fact if you can tolerate me a little longer you will see in reality I am a friendly old guy. ;D


Quote
Alan, you really need to start reading and understanding out posts - this is not what I said.  I can't believe you are forcing me to type this again
.

Believe me I  can understand anything you have posted but at my very advanced age I might get a little forgetfull  ???

If I just agreed and submitted to your logic then it would be the time to lock the topic. When we reach consensus then the the tread is truly dead

Alan
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile

This could just be us nit-picking about language, but I don't think water does anything for a 'reason' as in an ultimate aim.  The fact that water does this is good, as it supports life, but that's not why it does it, it's a consequence.  There's no reason why some water molecules would become a lake, or a river, they are caused to do it phy physical and chemical causes, and the consequence is the lake.
I guess this then gets back to chicken and egg horse and cart stuff.Which comes first.
If everything has no reason behind it would that not lead to a conclusion that the universe is one big coincidence.Do you believe that things such as gravity or black holes or life are just a coincidence with no reason in mind?.Or do you believe life is a consequence of the universe which is a consequence of the big bang.If so what is the big bang a consequence of.Nothing?.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

justaskin

Quote
I guess this then gets back to chicken and egg horse and cart stuff.Which comes first.
If everything has no reason behind it would that not lead to a conclusion that the universe is one big coincidence.Do you believe that things such as gravity or black holes or life are just a coincidence with no reason in mind?.Or do you believe life is a consequence of the universe which is a consequence of the big bang.If so what is the big bang a consequence of.Nothing?
.

Nice Justasking

Here is another case against an ID

A puddle of water awakes and comes to the profound truth that it is no Chance action that has made this hollow in the ground to exist in. Thus an intelligence made the hollow especially for it  ::)  ???

Alan 



 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
That's like saying the sun fuses hydrogen so that life can be warmed and plants can photosynthesize. Or that air exists so that we can breathe it. You're confusing the cart for the horse.

And whatever "caused" the origin of the universe, it does not help to say it was a deity.


Alan, are you then just arguing for the sake of it?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
stefan


Quote
Alan, are you then just arguing for the sake of it?

Absolutely not this subject is a huge debate in general society and I feel that when science reaches a blank wall like how did the big bang create our universe against the laws of physics that sustain it , science must be ready to enter the fray and take on others with scientific logic, instead of just stating a personal position.

How did it it expand against the force of an infinite gravity much greater than a black hole.? What colossal force of energy propelled the universe against the unimaginable primordial gravity of the singularity.?

My name sake Alan Guth stated that the universe expanded then stopped for just an infinitesimal moment to allow for the clumpliness and irregularity that resulted in the formation of galaxies stars etc? That is still evident in the CMB of the universe. His theory of expansion

Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are that it definitely has a beginning and that it is just one of many universes that came into existence. Inflation never ends, but keeps expanding at an exponential rate, meaning that it doubles in very short increments much less than one second. Universes keep being created all the time as bubbles within the inflation process. The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero.

But why did the universe obediently expand stop and then continue to expand?

Why is the universe asymmetrical instead of what it should be just a symmetrical soup of gamma rays?

What was before the big bang? instead of the common scientific answer of nothing

Something must have existed before our universe came into being, because there is only existence and the opposite of existence the absence of everything is an impossibility, so maybe our universe was created out of a previous nothingness, but I must disagree with the great Mr Guth if he was suggesting that "all existence" was created from total abscence of everything back to infinite eternity.

« Last Edit: 18/03/2009 12:18:28 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it?

-Douglas Adams
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

Madidus_Scientia


Quote
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it?

-Douglas Adams

Science tries to explain  why the garden appeared beautiful to our human perception, and it is this perception of what is beautiful and what is ugly that helps us survive on planet earth.

Using that statement as logic we should never have asked why the Northan lights are so beautiful.

Using science we now know what they really are, It is due to the suns radiation impacting the earths Magnetic Field. This is also a lucky accident for us or we would have been roasted by all forms of cosmic rays without this blanket of protection

Surely science must investigate the how?, why?  where? and what? and demigod forbid, even the whom  research all that is not yet proved by empirical scientific method

If one could take a cell phone back to the dark ages , this unfortunate person would have been burned at the stake. Why must we simply dismiss anything not embraced by scientific fact or theories as silly nonsense

Science will always come to a point , were science and philosophy must meet and dialogue in a fiendly manner
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length