Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance

  • 171 Replies
  • 43067 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Not only do I think this thread should not be locked down.Quite the contrary I think it should be made a sticky at the top of the section so we don't get this subject raised in its many incantations every other day.I would think the creation of the universe by design or any other means is quite a valid subject for new theories.After all I think it will be going on long after this site and all the people here have past on.
Compared to the rubbish and drivel that goes on in the JUST CHAT forum this is at least intelligent.

Cheers
justaskin

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Benv

Quote
If you're happy to accept it, then you must be happy to accept wolfekeeper's noodly appendages or any other explanation that anyone cares to put forward - you have to accept all of science fiction, all of fantasy, all deranged delusions (pink fairies and unicorns), as equally valid.  Are you happy to do so?  If not, why should your story have any more validity than those?

Noodly appendages do not need an intelligence to happen , they are just the result of random knotting, how on earth you can try to equate this really silly statement with the possibility that there is reason ,cause, and action behind the creation and sustainability of the universe that is just not logical

Quote
I think you've missed the point - by introducing an element of design you have added further complication - therefore it is not worth doing.  Also, it is unfalsifiable and based on unfalsifiable  assumptions, so it is again not worth doing.

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

Ben it is illogical to you and the very essence of logic to much greater minds than yours and you must accept that as an uncomfortable truth, you you that is , not me and billions of others who believe the unimaginable wonder, beauty, harmony and order can only be explained by acception a mind of infinite intellect is behind existence.

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

You have also not answered how the universe just popped into existence, apparently without a cause.This makes me wonder if there in an "Uncaused Cause" behind the universe/existence, where the buck must have started and where the buck must stop

Somewhere out there are minds infinitely greater than our puny human intellects and I think it is bombastic and arrogant to propose that humanity are the very pinnacle of creation

Alan

The Alpha and the Omega
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline latebind

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 248
  • Hello World
    • View Profile
The only thing that will solve this debate (and prove who is right) is good hard science, and many years.

I pose a question to those who believe in "Intelligent Designer".

WHY would this designer not make himself known to us? Can he not see how we fight each other all the time over religous nonsense?
Since we are his creations and he cares about us then why does he not step forward and put the record straight? After all we are his design and he should at least feel some responsibility for the pickle that we are in, he created it!







Late

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Well put Latebind.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Benv

Quote
If you're happy to accept it, then you must be happy to accept wolfekeeper's noodly appendages or any other explanation that anyone cares to put forward - you have to accept all of science fiction, all of fantasy, all deranged delusions (pink fairies and unicorns), as equally valid.  Are you happy to do so?  If not, why should your story have any more validity than those?

Noodly appendages do not need an intelligence to happen , they are just the result of random knotting, how on earth you can try to equate this really silly statement with the possibility that there is reason ,cause, and action behind the creation and sustainability of the universe that is just not logical
I assume in that case you're not familiar with the Flying Spagetti Monster? It's a spoof argument that if creationsism is to be taught in schools, so should the idea that the world was created and is ruled by a flying spagetti monster, and we are "touched by his noodly appendage".  It is a spoof, but it makes a very good point.

Quote
Quote
I think you've missed the point - by introducing an element of design you have added further complication - therefore it is not worth doing.  Also, it is unfalsifiable and based on unfalsifiable  assumptions, so it is again not worth doing.

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

Ben it is illogical to you and the very essence of logic to much greater minds than yours and you must accept that as an uncomfortable truth, you you that is , not me and billions of others who believe the unimaginable wonder, beauty, harmony and order can only be explained by acception a mind of infinite intellect is behind existence.
"an uncomfortable truth"?  It's not true though, it's a speculation.  You believe that to be true, but there is no objective evidence for it - we can't just pick our own truths.

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

Quote
You have also not answered how the universe just popped into existence, apparently without a cause.This makes me wonder if there in an "Uncaused Cause" behind the universe/existence, where the buck must have started and where the buck must stop
Actually, I have answered this question.  I've said I don't know.  This doesn't leave a gap to be filled with a designer, it's simply something we don't know.  I'm confortable with not knowing - I don't have to fill the unknown with postulates of designers.

Quote
Somewhere out there are minds infinitely greater than our puny human intellects and I think it is bombastic and arrogant to propose that humanity are the very pinnacle of creation
We have no idea if those minds are out there, but they may be.  As we have no idea if they exist, and no way to communicate with them, how do they have any bearing on anything?

I agree, it's bombastic and arrogant to suggest that humans are the pinnacle of creation.  In fact, I think it's quite arrogant to suggest that humans are created at all, when the evidence suggests otherwise.  However, it's perfectly legitimate to say that humans are presently the pinnacle of one path of evolution, just as sparrows and eucalyptus trees are pinnacles of other paths.

Quote
Alan

The Alpha and the Omega

Ben

The A, the C, the G and the T.

*

lyner

  • Guest
G and T?
I don't mind if I do.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
To help some take out the human factor of "intelligent Design" thinking that there must be a designer present. God or whatever.

Why don't we just change the word to "Intelligent Adaptation" I think more people will be ale to accept that idea.
After all everything adapts to their environment.

"Human mesenchymal stem cells maturing into cartilage"
"mesenchymal stem cells were extracted from the bone marrow of sheep. “These are cells which can differentiate into bone, cartilage, tendons or ligaments", Nick explains.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue18/stemcells.html

In regard to the person who said it is DNA responsible for stem cell intelligence, I actually thought it was my DNA that is responsible for my intelligence too.

So could "INTELLEGENT (design) ADAPTATION" be thought of as the other theory for those who cant get their head around non human/god/machine/whatever intervention [???]
A view with an open mind

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
No. Why make stuff up just so people can swallow it easier?
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Latebind


Quote
WHY would this designer not make himself known to us? Can he not see how we fight each other all the time over religous nonsense?
Since we are his creations and he cares about us then why does he not step forward and put the record straight? After all we are his design and he should at least feel some responsibility for the pickle that we are in, he created it!

The designer has made itself very clear to us, we are just part of the one enormous consciousness and we give it many titles god/ID etc take your pick

Scientifically we know that there is an interconnectedness an intertwining of every particle to every other particle in the universe. Taking only the force and action and reaction of gravity, should make this obvious.

We humans seem to think that the universe is unimaginably huge and vast, but that is just our perspective on reality.

To an ID/GOD etc our whole universe might just be an atom in a greater universe

For us to stand up and shout there is no such thing as an ID to me is like  chockroaches debating quantum physics 


We humans are religious fools not the infinite designer

BenV


My statement
Quote
You have also not answered how the universe just popped into existence, apparently without a cause.This makes me wonder if there in an "Uncaused Cause" behind the universe/existence, where the buck must have started and where the buck must stop
[/color]

Your response

Quote
Actually, I have answered this question.  I've said I don't know.  This doesn't leave a gap to be filled with a designer, it's simply something we don't know.  I'm confortable with not knowing - I don't have to fill the unknown with postulates of designers.
[/color]

You still bring up the silliness of the flying spaghetti monster and its noodily appendages. it makes no point other than an irrelevant one

When I look out at the unimaginable beauty, wonder and glory of the universe, like some astronauts I am moved to believe there must be a great hand in the formation of all existence

When I see my beautiful little grandaughter dancing and skipping in the sun and look into her eyes that reflect here beautiful soul , then "I KNOW THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER"

Evolution simply can not create altruistic love

"There are no atheists in the trenches"

The heavens or creation declares the glory of God

Ben do you really really believe all those who you love are just accidents of slow acts of evolution, do you really believe that they are just bundle's of random elements a bag of watery biological protoplasm???
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 07:58:59 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
You're making the argument from ignorance. "We don't know, therefore goddidit".

Don't be ridiculous. It has been established for quite some time that altruism evolves naturally, and that love is a result of brain biochemistry.
We know how things of beauty have evolved. We know that bodies really are just complex orginised chemistry. If anything, it's even more wondrous that they have evolved undirected, rather than designed. It adds absolutely nothing to say "goddidit".

If you want a scientific answer to your questions, intelligent design creationism will never be it.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Well I hope the universe is the result of intelligent design because if it is not then what?.
The universe is the result of.
Dumb design?.
Could have done better design?.
If that is the case could us humans ask for a refund for having to live in a less than well designed universe.
And if we use the current popular method of consensus science there is no doubt.The majority of scientists believe in god therefore god exists.
Me being a skeptic and denier though will just have to go on believing there is no such being.
I have no problem believing the universe is the result of some intelligent process because the alternative is the universe just popped into being one sunday afternoon from nothing.

Cheers
justaskin

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Scientific consensus does not work like that. Scientific consensus is reached when the scientific evidence and ideas are strong enough to (tentatively) convince the majority of scientists in that field. Thus, scientific consensus is not just an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to the evidence. Religious ideas have next to zero scientific support, and therefore any scientist who believes them is not doing so on scientific grounds. And all you're left with is an appeal to authority - another logical fallacy.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Stefan

Quote
You're making the argument from ignorance. "We don't know, therefore goddidit".

Don't be ridiculous. It has been established for quite some time that altruism evolves naturally, and that love is a result of brain biochemistry.

Stefan Stefan Stefan it has not been established that altruism is the result of wacky brain chemistry or that hate is also the result for the same reason. Love is not just an image of blood flow seen in an MRI scanner??

I am not making argument from the unsteady platform of ignorance, all I am trying to suggest, is that there is much much better evidence in nature for a designer that there is against the existence of one. If you dislike this approach so much, come on and give me evidence that there is no ID.

I have brought into this thread many facts "suggesting that "there might be" an ID" and all I have received from most of you is irrational outbursts that someone is trying to take away their precious belief in an uncaused universe



Medical science in reality knows very little about how the brains hormones, neuro- transmitters act or react in the brain, they are still trying to fathom out how this unimaginably complex organ really works

Love and hate can be intrinsic or endogenous having nothing to do with neuro- transmitters. "Love causes the love neuron transmitters to flood the brain", not the other way around as you suggest, that it is "neuro- transmitters a out little out of sync that result in feelings of selfless love".

Do you really think your love for your spouse, kids, parents etc are just the result of some chemical effect on your brain, come on your loved ones are real not a delusion or illusion brought on by brain chemicals!!!
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Alan

ID is dismissible purely from basic logic. It is also dismissible because it is absolutely unscientific. You're the one making irrational posts, not me.

Please read in depth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)

I am sorry, but you do not have a rational basis on which to reject this information and replace it with your own notions.

While you're out reading, please learn more about evolution. The fact that you think ID is even worth considering as an explanation means that you do not have a good understanding of the topic.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Nobody can prove if the universe is a result of intelligent design or not or if there is a designer or not.Until there is it is just speculation one way or the other.

Cheers
justaskin

*

lyner

  • Guest
AMcD
Quote
Do you really think your love for your spouse, kids, parents etc are just the result of some chemical effect on your brain, come on your loved ones are real not a delusion or illusion brought on by brain chemicals!!!
Why not? As systems, we are not likely to be able to 'understand' ourselves fully. There's a simple Venn diagram argument which implies that self-knowledge would have to be unlimited in order to contain all of itself. Our bodies are continually being run by sub-systems of which we're not aware but our consciousness uses an 'arrogance' strategy which makes us think we're in charge. The boss doesn't know who's fixing the central heating - he just organises the finances so someone can be paid to do that sort of thing. The boss feels he's in charge but the C/H man can freeze the boss if he chooses to.
What you are saying is that, because we couldn't understand ourselves fully, someone else must be responsible for constructing us. You are invoking a 'God of the gap' because you feel a need to explain something you can't. This is understandable but doesn't prove anything except that you are using a strategy to deal with a difficult subject.
This God of the gap is not necessary if you can accept the more simple explanation that you don't need to have everything explained.

Anyone who has received medication for emotional illness can tell you that these higher emotions which you assume are proofs of a God, are indistinguishable (so why not the same) as what can be produced chemically. This offends and scares people if they can't just accept it.

And if you insist there must be a God - where did it come from? More Turtles, I'm afraid. If you want to talk Science, then you have to go for the reductionist explanation.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Stefan


Quote
What you are saying is that, because we couldn't understand ourselves fully, someone else must be responsible for constructing us. You are invoking a 'God of the gap' because you feel a need to explain something you can't. This is understandable but doesn't prove anything except that you are using a strategy to deal with a difficult subject.
This God of the gap is not necessary if you can accept the more simple explanation that you don't need to have everything explained

My ID does not need any gap to reveal itself, it is everything it equates to all existence. ID= EXISTENCE. Where have I use the term God? in this thread , god is an entity that requires worship, faith etc and this in nothing like my concept of an intelligent designer.

If I forced to express my take on God then I agree with Einstein , I like the idea of the god of Spinoza the Dutch philosopher


Quote
ID is dismissible purely from basic logic. It is also dismissible because it is absolutely unscientific. You're the one making irrational posts, not me

That if from your perspective Stefan not mine and I accept that, but to me my statements are rational but I must   agree not always true science But you must acknowledge that many many great scientists have not dismissed the possibility of an ID, and I like to identify myself with them

I am not religious at all , in fact I despise narrow minded silly fundamentalism


Science can take us back to the big bang, it can not tell us what happened, how it happened and who or what made it happen. The big bang itself is absolutely not science but mysticism. Back then events happened that defy the present cosmological laws or constants, and only someone or a something who set these laws in place, could have had the intelligence to monkey with them, as were done in the primordial universe.

Take your body it is just a bunch of elements and chemicals arranged in some lucky way by evolution, and yes I can accept that view pint as truth.

But now we come to the ultimate mystery. If you take the exact state of a persons body, just before death, weight, water, mass, chemical composition etc etc, and then do the exact same just after the death of this person , everything would measure exactly the same. The body pre-death and post-death is exactly the same

Except of something of very very vital importance, this previously "animated entity" is now "inanimate", it is what we call dead. What is no longer there, that thing we call "life"

Life is the gift of the intelligent Designer

I AM LIFE
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
I really think this discussion is over.  Alan McD would like to believe in an intelligent designer.  Others have said that there is no point postulating one.

As to life being the 'gift' of a designer, I disagree.  My life was a gift from my parents. 

I understand that you do not think of yourself as religious, but this:
Quote
Life is the gift of the intelligent Designer
marks you out as being someone who thinks in a religious way.  You may not pray or give thanks to your designer, but your designer is a deity.

Based on the evidence, the mind is a result of the physical brain, and life is a result of biological processes.  No designer implied by the facts, no designer needed to understand, no designer required to live.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
The body pre-death and post-death is exactly the same

No, there is always a reason a body is dead, and if it's dead it definitely must not be exactly the same as it was when it was alive.


*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
BenV

Maybe you think this thread is over, but the question relating to this thread will never be over!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Although I have already stated I am areligious I think this article on ID (and I am not a Catholic and there is nothing wrong in being one)


The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
 
By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 9:35PM GMT 11 Feb 2009

Gianfranco Ravasi: Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
 
Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.


The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".

Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.

They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds.



Alan
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 19:38:01 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
When I look out at the unimaginable beauty, wonder and glory of the universe, like some astronauts I am moved to believe there must be a great hand in the formation of all existence

Yeah so what? How does that make what you are moved to believe true?

Quote
Evolution simply can not create altruistic love

As sophiecentaur has already asked, why not?

Quote
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

Quote
But you must acknowledge that many many great scientists have not dismissed the possibility of an ID, and I like to identify myself with them

More arguments from authority? Those aren't going to convince us rational types of anything.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 20:17:20 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
It is over, Alan, because we are not discussing the original question.  There are plenty of other threads to discuss biological evolution in, this is not the place.

BenV

Maybe you think this thread is over, but the question relating to this thread will never be over!

Followed by a story that does not address the question relating to this thread at all...
Quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Although I have already stated I am areligious I think this article on ID (and I am not a Catholic and there is nothing wrong in being one)


The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
 
By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 9:35PM GMT 11 Feb 2009

Gianfranco Ravasi: Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
 
Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.


The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.
Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".

Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.

They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds.



Alan

So this news story has nothing to do with whether or not the universe was designed (the original question and point of this thread), and adds nothing.  So catholics can accept evolution - good, so they should.  Religion and science are only at odds when someone with a theistic belief insists that their belief is objective fact.

Let me give you an example - in this thread, a person with a theistic belief (that an intelligent designer created the universe and guides evolution) is claiming that belief to be an unargueable fact.  Of course, it is not a fact - it is that person's interpretation of what they percieve.  Strangely, despite people pointing this out, the person continues to claim that his or her theistic belief must be true, and that everyone else must be wrong.

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
So getting back to the original question what do you believe. Is the universe a result of some form of design or are the laws that govern the universe as we observe it just a hotch potch that popped into existence some time in the past.What scientific proof is there one way or another.I am quite prepared to believe there was time before the big bang and before that and before that.I have more trouble believing the universe just popped into existence from nothing sometime in the past and before that nothing.
May I suggest that if we don't want to discuss the religious side of this discussion then just stop replying to anything with religious connotations.

Cheers
justaskin

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
It is difficult to imagine the universe popping into existence.

However, if you postulate that a god or "intelligent designer" created the universe, there's 2 things popping to existence, the God, and the universe.




*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
It is difficult to imagine the universe popping into existence.
Well is that not what the big bang theory postulates.

Quote
However, if you postulate that a god or "intelligent designer" created the universe, there's 2 things popping to existence, the God, and the universe.
No only one as presumably the designer already existed.If he popped into existence at the same time as the universe how could he have designed it.
The thing is was this universe designed to have the laws it has or are all universes past present and future bound by the same laws of physics.

Cheers
justaskin

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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

A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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/
A view with an open mind

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 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
  • *****
  • 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_ »
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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.
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 



The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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?
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)