0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: BenV on 17/03/2009 12:15:28 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).Cheersjustaskin
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'.
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
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?
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 realityAlan
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.
So the one being arrogant here is you, to assume that your unprovable designer is somehow more likely than any other unprovable hypothesis.
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
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?
Alan, are you then just arguing for the sake of it?
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
how did the big bang create our universe against the laws of physics that sustain it
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 methodIf 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
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 18/03/2009 20:39:55Surely 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 methodIf 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 nonsenseI agree, Science should be opened minded , question everything and not rely on theories that can not explain 100% what they intend to. Even theories that we may think are fact should be thought about and viewed from a different perspective and in doing so we may learn more, come to the different conclusions. Even thoughts that we are unable to test at this present time should not be discarded. Someone said "Nothing is impossible it only takes longer" remembering that once we all thought the world was flat, now we know better... and in 1995 it was recorded as truth that Mary died a virgin. (don't get me wrong I don't want to get on the religious band wagon - keep religion out of science. But because a person in authority said that and recorded it as fact it is believed by hundreds of thousands of people.All I am saying is if we all go on believing things blindly we will never know the truth. We must question and find the answers to all our thoughts then question them again when we thing we have found the answer. Our ideas should not be discarded just because we do not have the ability or knowledge to test validity at that time.Without questions and new ideas nothing would have been discovered.
But postulating an intelligent designer takes us no nearer the ultimate origin of things because the ID, if, indeed, one was necessary, would have to have been designed in the first place.ID fans never seem to have an answer to that problem.
That's just a motherhood and apple pie argument.
"Motherhood and apple pie day" is celebrated each January 26 in Virginia and has been since at least 1950, though I'm not sure continuously. It is mostly used ironically to suggest things that no one could be publicly opposed to. Sometimes it was used with God and flag, but less frequently in the recent past.
echoI'm not trying to humanise it.But I can't see how you can be so attached to the word "intelligence" without humanising it yourself. It so strongly implies purpose and design whereas I am saying that you need neither. We simply have a status quo and can propose a fairly logical set of occurrences which got us here. That does not have to infer purpose or design - it does, however, give a hope of extrapolating forward.If you postulate a DD then, as things could change away from the pattern at any time, we may as well bend over and embrace Kismet as the way forward.
and can propose a fairly logical set of occurrences