Design on a Dime

Think of God as Donald Trump. He builds a factory to make Trumpmobiles. On opening day, he cuts the ribbon and gives reporters a tour. ("This is the machine that installs the hood ornament.")Does he get in there with a wrench to adjust every windshield wiper?Micromanagement on the part of the designer would only indicate a poor design. To hell in a handbasket.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying that a god who has to go back and fix his mistakes is no God at all. He's a mechanic. He's a creation of man, created in the image of man.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not at all. An experimentalist would watch his experiment unfold with out meddling. He'd be detached. But, if he attached himself to the experiment by making adjustments, he'd be acknowledging his mistakes.Observation is a higher calling than adjustment. That's why writers are more memorable than psychiatrists.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Then he'd create a new experiment. It's dishonest to tinker with an ongoing experiment just because you don't like the direction it's going.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Moving the goalposts is dishonest. If you want to call God an artist, then everything is a special creation. Every brushstroke, every millimeter that an amoeba oozes would be directly controlled by God.I was addressing the exact opposite situation, a self-painting painting.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Then maybe you should explain how I misunderstood.You asked:

quote:

---

Is God in any way part of the creation, guiding its progress? Message 1

---

I suggested that a God who builds a machine (designs a process) would be "greater" than a God who operates a machine. You brought up an artist who controls every aspect of the finished product. Who believes that about God?Edited by Ringo, : Splling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Self-evident" is the refuge of he who has no evidence. "Unassailable facts" are seldom unassailable and seldom facts.Evolutionist voices around the world are rising in a chorus of, "Thanks for getting off our side."

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There are (at least) two possibilities:

1. "Something" has always been, whether that something is a "creator/designer" or something else.
   ​
2. "Something" came from nothing, whether that something is a "creator/designer" or something else.

Yes. I really don't care if you derive any meaning from it. You're just the instrument.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You said we were going to "reason together". Why don't you do that instead of just giving an empty opinion? Are you under the impression that you're the only one reading this?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There's no more need to explain how something can come from nothing than there is to explain how something can be eternal. You've chosen one of the alternatives arbitrarily and dismissed the other without reason. What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after? Doesn't matter who I'm advocating for. The principle recipient is the jury, not you.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Who said anything about a strict naturalistic view? That doesn't follow at all. A rock could be eternal. Huh? Coming from nothing implies a beginning. It's the opposite of eternal. What exactly leads you to believe that anything could be eternal when there is nothing to model this belief after?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

First, nobody said there was nothing "before" the singularity. Second, I didn't say anything about the singularity. You were the one who said, "Let's philosophize." Remember? Anything to do with the singularity is irrelevant to this discussion.You claimed that anything eternal has the power to create. I said that if a rock was eternal it would not have any more power to create than ordinary temporal rocks. Can you get with the program and stop jumping to conclusions? No. The opposite of eternal would be not eternal - i.e. temporal - i.e. having a beginning and/or an end. I keep answering your question with the same question because you don't seem to understand that it is the same question. As I said earlier, two of (possibly) many alternatives are:

1. There could be an uncaused "creator",
   ​
   OR
   ​
2. The "creation" could be eternal.

Those two alternatives are about equally likely, so why do you keep harping about one and ignoring the other? What?If science has proven that pile of bullshit "fact", please give us a link.And then tell us what the @#$% science has got to do with this philosophical discussion.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course you can add to an infinite. But what has that got to do with the universe being temporal, and what has that got to do with design? Non sequitur. Individual organisms have a beginning and an end, a "birth" and a death - but there's no reason why their molecules (or subatomic particles) couldn't be eternal. Still wrong. Also wrong. Your molecules might once have been ash from Mt. Vesuvius. Mine might once have been a dragonfly. Nothing added, nothing taken away. "Something" outside of time/space/matter is an automatic nullification of Occam's Razor. So where's the link I asked for? Instead of claiming that all observable evidence since Hubble backs you up, why not show us where any evidence backs you up?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Infinity + 1 = Infinity. You're mangling together infinity, time and "dimensions" with no trace of logic that I can see. That seems circular to me.If our timeline is infinite, the past and future are both infinite. We're just somewhere on the line. Adding to the past and subtracting from the future would have no effect on the size of the past or the future.The only way you can arrive at a definite beginning is by assuming your conclusion, that time is finite. I already said that the atoms and/or subatomic particles making up the molecules and cells could be eternal. Did that. See above. Of course. I don't see where you've demonstrated that "all matter will die". If you are going to claim that something is out of context, generally you should offer a reason as to how you arrived at your position. If it's so "transparently obvious", why not give a simple reference instead of expecting me to find it in a giant pdf? The least you could do is give a quote. Are you deliberately being evasive?In case you've forgotten, here's the statement I asked you to back up:

quote:

---

Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is. Message 85

---

Kindly direct us to where your reference gives that proof.-------------Just to recap what all of this has to do with the topic:You made the statement, if I understand correctly, that the universe must have a cause - i.e. a creator/designer. I said that there is no need for a cause if the universe has always existed.Scientifically, the universe "began" with the Big Bang but philosophically, I see no reason why we can't extend "whatever the singularity was made of" back to infinity. Matter as we know it may have "begun" at the Big Bang, but what about whatever matter is "made of"? If we can talk about an "uncaused cause", why not "unmatter matter"?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What "infinite things"? The only infinite "thing" I've been talking about is the timeline. That's what I've been saying. I argued that matter doesn't die. I didn't say anything about the universe being infinite. I said eternal - i.e. infinite timeline. Who cares what you believe? I'm only trying to make the point that an everlasting universe is (about) as plausible as an uncaused cause.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC