Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Logical truths is a human contrived term to describe observed associations and behavior of what we see in reality (the universe around us).Are you saying that atoms and molecules will fall apart because there is no one to observe them or some mastermind to put them together? Can you provide evidence for this assumption? Everything at its base level is a soup of energy and mass anyways. Randomness implies a mind to determine something to be random vice non-random so you are stabbing yourself in the foot with this statement.The basic gist is this. Does the universe exist even if there are no minds (natural or supernatural) that exist within it and from which to observe and understand it. The answer I believe is yes. The alternative is unsubstantiated solipsism.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What is truth? For something to exist, does not require a rational mind to understand it. Yes? True. But a statement about reality and reality itself are two seperate things. You are equating to our comprehension of the universe with the universe itself. They are not the same thing. Is my saying "The tree is green" the same thing as an actual existing green tree?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

No, because the laws of mathematics and logic are what we observe in the universe we exist in and the very definition of 1+1 that we have ascribed to the reality we live in requires it to equal 2. Mathematics is a human contrived invention to describe the world. Remove all the human minds and you remove mathematics but you do not remove the physical enivornment (matter and energy) that mathematics describes.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This makes no sense. What do you mean by 'reality' in this context? What do you mean they are real?? Again, mathematics is the language we use to describe the universe. Mathematics is not the universe. '1+1=2' is not floating out there in subatomic or cosmic spacetime somewhere. This is a human expression or term used to describe our universe. That is it. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Logic is just a term to describe how we human beings attempt to understand the universe. So yes, indirectly matter and energy created logic, since matter and energy created human beings. If by matter and energy you mean the entire universe we know to exist aka 'everything' than the answer is no, the term '1+1=2 ' will cease to apply because there will be nothing aka no 'mind', to use this term nor anything on which it is to be referenced to.Hope this makes sense.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fixed quotes

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

So are you saying a 'mind' is not derived from matter and energy?
If a 'mind' is not derived from matter and energy than what is it derived from?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Um, not being a philosophy or logics major, I had to look up the term "necessary truths".According to this definition: I would have to say that "necessary truths" are true irregardless of the physical universe they exist in. The question is really: Do necessary truths actual exist? And if so how would we distinguish between 'necessary truths' that exist irregardless and 'contigent truths' which only exist in our own universe. There really is no way to tell the difference thus making this a moot point.Since I nor anyone else can prove existence outside of this universe than again this is a moot point.As far as are 'necessary truths' created by the human mind I would have to say no. However the rules of logic created by the human mind and the truths i.e. the Big Bang occured 10-15 billion years ago (just accept it as a truth for argument sake) are not the same thing. Rules of logic and the language of mathematics are used to try to understand these truths. They are not the truths themselves. No, I am saying '1+1=2' and "truth" don't make sense without a 'mind' to comprehend these human concoted terms.For example, if there were two planets in a solar system, the term one planet + one planet = two planets makes no sense if there is no one to comprehend it even though it is a true statement. The two planets exist but their association with this math problem does not without an objective source aka mind to understand it.What is a 'general' mind? The only mind we know about is a human 'mind', though animals have 'minds' too we do not know there exact capacity for understanding the world around them.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Agreed. But truths can exist without our human comprehension of logic. What falls apart? And why the need for a mind?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

That is the only mind I am familiar with. Can you give an example of another type of mind? I am not going to go down the slippery slope of asking about evidence of a creator God which you are obviously implying here. That is a topic for another discussion which has already been beaten bloody blue. This is all meaningless semantics. You are giving the term 'logic' some mystical metaphysical meaning which is not verifiable. What? Where do you get this from? This is a complete opposite of what I am saying. Logic is just a term contrived by humans to describe how the reality we exist in functions. That is all. What source? The creator God? and what 'ones' are you talking about?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

You do not comprehend very well. I will repeat myself: So basically I am saying "necessary truths" and "contigent truths" are the same creatures. Because we have no knowledge of anything outside our reality/universe, we have no way to to distinguish the two. And since contigent truths are dependent on the universe (matter and energy) that they describe than they are in a sense manufactured by that reality/universe. How can you prove this? You are miscombobulating terms here. Not necessarily your fault they all derive from the same root word but have different meanings depending on their context. I find it confusing myself. Here is the term for truth that I (and the philosophers I quoted) am using: So in this context, a "truth" exists irregardless if there is a mind to comprehend it or not. For example, the "Earth revolves around the Sun" is a truth irregardless if there are people to observe this truth or not. This has nothing to do with "truth and falsehood" as an anthropomorphic, moral term. Does that make sense? As in the case above, the Earth revolves around the sun, whether there is a reference mind or not to observe or contemplate this fact of reality aka "truth". But the mind's existance is dependent on the natural world. Can you give me an example where it is not? You are butchering the terms "logic", "true", "existance" and "physics".This is why intelligent design is a pseudoscience masquerading as science. Those who espouse it typically have no understadanding of what logic and science is. But this is what you are implying is it not? What other mind is there besides the biological (human) mind? And why does this "reference mind" NEED to exist?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This is why it is called a "truth". This 'statements' are true irregardless if there is anyone there to determine it is true or not.The Earth revolves around the Sun is true, irregardless if anyone is there to determine this to be true or not. Planet XYZ orbits star ZYX whether or not there are humans or any other mind or intelligence to determine this to be true or not.If humans never existed, these facts would still be true. Though nobody would exist for them to be called true or as you term 'evaluate' them as true. Does this make sense?It is not like if there is no one there, the Earth all of a sudden stops orbiting the Sun or disapears from existence.Truths are just terms or statements we use to describe reality. That is all.We can only describe reality by that which we know, not that which we don't know.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Actually for both we need the physical world to put into practice. What does "1+1=2", pi or the limit of c, mean if there is nothing to which they refer to.Furthermore, how did we derive 1+1=2 in the first place?Yes, in mathematics and logistics we can determine mathematical concepts and principles cognitively without any reference to the outside world. However, the language of mathematics has its origins in the reality we live in and without our physical world it is truely meaningless. 'Existance' occurs irrelevant on whether an observer or evaluator is there to determine somethings existence. 'Meaning' or 'purpose' by its very definition requires an evaluator/mind.Thus, 1+1=2 ultimately is meaningless without a mind. Right, we can't evaluate it without the physical world to observe it. However, just because we can't evaluate it, doesn't make it any less true. "Truths" are true whether or not there is an outside observer. It is a tough concept to understand because we try to internalize everything but it really does make sense.Atoms exist in this universe whether or not anyone is around to observe them. That is a 'truth' and it is true irregardless if any mind or human ever existed to observe this to be true or not. Of course if there was no one to determine this, than nobody would know that this to be a 'truth', but that doesn't make this statement any less of a 'truth'. Ok, again, how can you determine if some is a 'necessary' vice 'contigent' truth? How do you know that a truth is not contigent on anything inside the reality we live in?The fact is there is no method or process that we can determine this. Thus 'necessary' and 'contigent' truths are the same.Furthermore, it is not that 1+1=2 does not exist, it is that 1+1=2 has no meaning with no observer. Matter exists, numbers are symbolic representations of the interaction of matter and energy and thus do not exist. So it makes no sense to say that 1+1=2 exists. I am not sure if anyone is claiming this or not. I am not claiming this.Have to run. Will discuss the rest of your post later.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Excellent post BlueJay. You said in one post what I have been trying to get across to MrQ this whole thread.I learned something new. I had never heard the term 'reifiation' before.Thanks!

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

The universe has a sense of order only because we as humans think it has order. 'Order' is a human-derived anthropic concept which has no meaning if there were not humans present to quantify it.In a alternate universe, the inhabitants may say that our universe was in disorder while there universe was in order and vice-versa.Now if you are using the term 'order' to mean the decrease of entropy in a closed system that also opens another can of worms as the arrow of time (entropy) at the quantum level does not always run in the same direction as it seems to do at the macroscopic level.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World