Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 265 of 300 (301920)
04-07-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by JRTjr
04-07-2006 9:58 AM


Interesting post. A few issues with it though:
The Universe (as defined above) came into existence some four-point smoothing billion years ago.
The first issue is unrelated to your point, but I thought it worth raising. The universe as it was defined either came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago or 4.x billion years ago or 2-5 million years ago.
. That law is a function of the restraints of the dimensions that we exist in (inside of this universe).
I exist in the dimensions of Height, Width, Depth, and Space-Time. Everything that exists in, and is a part of this universe has a causer agent (something that caused it to exist). If it is of sufficient organization and complexity I can say, with certainty, that it required an intelligence to design it. The universe has both organization and complexity; therefore, I come to the conclusion that it has an Intelligent Designer
The central problems lie here. You say that something that comes to exist within the universe must have a causer agent, and then apply this rule to the universe itself despite the fact that the universe is emphatically not within the universe. Another potential problem comes from the idea that complex/organized things have intelligent designers behind them. This is not necessarily the case.
Further, whilst the universe could be, at this time, quite organised/complex, its not very organised or complex. It seems to be quite basic from another perspective, most of it is entirely empty with relatively small, local collections of stuff spread about, interacting with one another. Certainly, if we look at the universe from a different time perspective it may well be seen as a uniform collection of energy. As such, whether or not the universe has any measure of complexity at any given moment is entirely relative to the observor as well as the metric used to define complexity (something you left undefined).

A final point: bkelly has not been on the forums this side of 2006 - so you probably won't get a reply from them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by JRTjr, posted 04-07-2006 9:58 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 6:01 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 272 of 300 (303128)
04-11-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by JRTjr
04-11-2006 6:01 AM


Re: The Universe
As far as the Universe not being complex, I’m not trying to be mean here, however you may want to read up on the little science has been able to deduce from the heavens. Every time we delve into her mysteries, the Universe turns out to be far more complex then we ever thought possible.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. 'Strange' might be a good term, perhaps 'difficult to understand', but complex isn't necessarily true. As my post indicated you'll have to define complex. As per my post you'll also need to take into account the entirety of the universe. On average. This includes time (remember your 4 dimensions), and as far as I am aware, the universe is going to spend the majority of its existence in heat death which by any definition I'm aware of is extremely non-complex.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 11-April-2006 01:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 04-11-2006 6:01 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 275 of 300 (304408)
04-15-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by ramoss
04-15-2006 9:00 AM


Re: Traveling Salesman
Perhaps you could expand on that response. Why does the route being a cumulative process make it a bad analogy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ramoss, posted 04-15-2006 9:00 AM ramoss has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024