Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:10 AM
393 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 185 (486493)
10-21-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NOT JULIUS
10-17-2008 5:56 PM


Re: I'm Sorry I Broke a promise--Is it a question of Identity
Hello again doubting too, was away for the latter part of last week, so here's my somewhat delayed response.
Doubting Too writes:

I remember answering almost the same question from a kid, "why does banana taste like banana". I tried explaining it through "how's"--chemical composition, etc. But he kept asking why. Finally, I said a banana taste like a banana because if all fruits--apples, oranges, etc--would taste like banana, we would die or boredom. Finally, he accepted that answer because he would not like his apple or orange to taste like banana.

And there is a lesson here--even the variety of taste that we have (as opposed to a monotonous one) is proof that the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom.


Wow...just wow.... OK, right, since there's been enough ridiculing this statement already, I will simply ask you to provide any evidence for:
a)There was a designer for fruit.
b)That his goal was to make all fruit taste different.
c)That we would in fact DIE of boredom if all fruits tasted the same.

Thanks for that. But, however you put it there is a goal. And, if there is a goal then it is designed--by definition

Yes, yet you have failed to show there actually IS a goal, again you simply assert it here.

Finally, I think the real question is not evidence of design. It is a question of the designer's identity. His problem is he did not put "Made by..." If he did, there would be no need of this debate or even this forum. Would you agree?

To discuss who the designer might be, you first have to show that he designed anything at all, else there's no point in speculating on who he might be. I agree of course that if there was a designer AND his identity was known, then we wouldn't need to discuss it, but that's not really the case, now is it?

I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough. :=) :=)

Ok, fine, but don't expect people to just swallow everything you say. Just because you THINK it is right doesn't mean it IS, that would require showing evidence.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-17-2008 5:56 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:16 PM Huntard has responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 1857 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 107 of 185 (486508)
10-21-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
10-21-2008 12:08 PM


Why are you tempting me--For those who want to know more
huntard writes:

To discuss who the designer might be, you first have to show that he designed anything at all, else there's no point in speculating on who he might be. I agree of course that if there was a designer AND his identity was known, then we wouldn't need to discuss it, but that's not really the case, now is it?

I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough. :=) :=)

Ok, fine, but don't expect people to just swallow everything you say. Just because you THINK it is right doesn't mean it IS, that would require showing evidence.

You are the TEMPTER! ( really a complement, my friend). I broke my promise again. But, for the interest of those who want to know more, please follow this link: http//www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

The question raised was : Does the universe have a purpose?

The answers from these men of science ranged from No, Unlikely, Perhaps, Yes, Certainly, etc. Fine reading.

My friend, I could use the previous argument you posted to bolster my argument. But, I would prefer that the reader go to that link. It is to my mind, NEUTRAL.

Think again: if all fruits tasted like banana, it would be boring. Boredom kills. So, the Purposer / Designer of the fruit did it... so that ungrateful men would enjoy and have life, instead.

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 10-21-2008 12:08 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 12:37 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 1857 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 108 of 185 (486510)
10-21-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:16 PM


A sampling of their Answers
Hello Huntard and the rest of the gang,

http://templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

Here is a sampling of portions of their answers:

L. Krauss, Professor of Physics writes:

Unlikely.
Perhaps you hoped for a stronger statement, one way or the other. But as a scientist I don’t believe I can make one. While nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or cosmology has ever provided direct evidence of purpose in nature, science can never unambiguously prove that there is no such purpose. As Carl Sagan said, in another con¬text: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up.”

D.Gelemter, Professor of computer science writes:

Yes.
Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one…
Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe—which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged.
But why rise above and not blend into nature? Equivalently, from a Western viewpoint: why did the Judeo-Christian tradition replace the pagan idea of gods made in man’s image with a revolutionary inversion, man made in God’s? Why should we be goaded not to be ourselves but to be better than ourselves?
Why seek goodness?

They were talking about the universe having a purpose--and that's a big thing. What would be their answer to the question: Why does not all fruits taste like banana--is there a PURPOSE to that? Hmm..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:16 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 6:57 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 10-21-2008 7:57 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Vacate, posted 10-21-2008 8:50 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 12:54 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 109 of 185 (486512)
10-21-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:42 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
If vegetables are so good for us and fat and sugar are so bad why do strawberry cheesecake and chocolate taste so good whilst brussel sprouts and lentils seem so unappealing? Why are drugs addictive but cucumber not?

Whoever designed that is a bastard. What purpose did they have for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 110 of 185 (486514)
10-21-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:42 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
why did the Judeo-Christian tradition replace the pagan idea of gods made in man’s image with a revolutionary inversion, man made in God’s?

'Cause it never did that, y'think?

Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto.

Non sequitur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 1983 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 111 of 185 (486517)
10-21-2008 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:42 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Doubting Too writes:

They were talking about the universe having a purpose--and that's a big thing. What would be their answer to the question: Why does not all fruits taste like banana--is there a PURPOSE to that?

As Straggler has pointed out there are examples where there is an apparent negative purpose to many things (if one is to assume a purpose). If there is a purpose how then do you go about explaining the vast number of examples that could be provided where the 'purpose' appears to be decidedly negative? Did the creator make a mistake in creation and not make positive purposes to all things or was there two creators, apparently working together, but with different goals? (one to make apparent 'good' purpose to some things and another to make 'bad' purpose to all others)

It should be obvious to you that when assigning purpose to one example that hundreds of counter examples can be provided that put into question the whole 'omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God' idea. Did you simply not think of that or did you perhaps think that nobody would notice such a fundamental blunder? Its not to say that I have not seen a few blunders take place on EvC, it just seems that if you can explain such an apparent problem in your argument now would be a good time to get around to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 185 (486552)
10-22-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:16 PM


Re: Why are you tempting me--For those who want to know more
Doubting Too writes:

You are the TEMPTER! ( really a complement, my friend).


Thank you :D

I broke my promise again. But, for the interest of those who want to know more, please follow this link: http://www.templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

Breaking a promise for a good reason is OK in my book, I'll check out your link, I will however not debate it here, since it's kinda against the forum rules.

The question raised was : Does the universe have a purpose?

The answers from these men of science ranged from No, Unlikely, Perhaps, Yes, Certainly, etc. Fine reading.


Ok, so it's undoubtedly a nice read, but as far as an argument goes, it's worthless, as it's an appeal to authority.

My friend, I could use the previous argument you posted to bolster my argument. But, I would prefer that the reader go to that link. It is to my mind, NEUTRAL.

How would you go about bolstering your argument with a counter-argument? Again, I'm sure the link is fascinating, but it's still bare speculation.

Think again: if all fruits tasted like banana, it would be boring. Boredom kills. So, the Purposer / Designer of the fruit did it... so that ungrateful men would enjoy and have life, instead.

Boredom DOES NOT kill. I'm bored from time to time, yet I'm still here. I don't even eat that much fruit (I know, I'm a bad boy) So even if I did eat some from time to time and it tasted like banana, I wouldn't mind one bit.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:16 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 1:16 PM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 113 of 185 (486555)
10-22-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NOT JULIUS
10-21-2008 6:42 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Doubting Too writes:

Hello Huntard and the rest of the gang,

http://templeton.org/purpose/pdfs/bq_universe.pdf

Here is a sampling of portions of their answers:


Right, let's have a little look, shall we:

L. Krauss, Professor of Physics writes:

Unlikely.
Perhaps you hoped for a stronger statement, one way or the other. But as a scientist I don’t believe I can make one. While nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or cosmology has ever provided direct evidence of purpose in nature, science can never unambiguously prove that there is no such purpose. As Carl Sagan said, in another con¬text: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up.”

I think this is quite right, science can never PROVE there is no designer. However looking at the current state of things, there is NOTHING that points to there being one. If you want to believe that there is one, fine, but don't go shouting that it's "obvious" cause it isn't.

D.Gelemter, Professor of computer science writes:

Yes.
Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one…


Bolding mine.
See, he BELIEVES there is a purpose, he doesn't say, this and that POINTS to there being a purpose, no, he BELIEVES there is. In other words, it's an assertion.

Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe—which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged.

Bit of a pessimist isn't he? Talking about how dark and evil the universe is. But, as I'm sure you have noted, this is his personal BELIEF, not an undeniable fact.

But why rise above and not blend into nature? Equivalently, from a Western viewpoint: why did the Judeo-Christian tradition replace the pagan idea of gods made in man’s image with a revolutionary inversion, man made in God’s?

The god of the bible is as much made in man's image as the pagan gods.

Why should we be goaded not to be ourselves but to be better than ourselves?
Why seek goodness?

Because that's beneficial for the survival of the species.

Doubting Too writes:

They were talking about the universe having a purpose--and that's a big thing.


Yes, it is, and as I'm sure you've noted, neither of them provide ANY evidence for it having a purpose.

What would be their answer to the question: Why does not all fruits taste like banana--is there a PURPOSE to that? Hmm..

Well, I'm pretty sure the first guy would look at you very strangely when you asked him that, in fact, I think the other one would also.

Again, I don;t eat that many fruit, so if all fruit tasted like banana, I wouldn't care. Furthermore, I get bored once and again, and I certainly don't kill myself in those moments, nor would I kill myself over anything as silly as all fruit tasting like bananas.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:12 PM Huntard has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 114 of 185 (486561)
10-22-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Huntard
10-22-2008 12:54 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Huntard writes:

I think this is quite right, science can never PROVE there is no designer. However looking at the current state of things, there is NOTHING that points to there being one.

Except that there is a whole universe, life, intelligence and consciousness, that allegedly self-created themselves. I wish money would start self-creating itself, it would be fun, right? You believe in miracles, that should be a religion by itself.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 12:54 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 3:16 PM Agobot has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 115 of 185 (486572)
10-22-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Agobot
10-22-2008 1:12 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Agobot writes:

I wish money would start self-creating itself, it would be fun, right?


Fun? That would destroy the ENTIRE economy, since money would become worthless.

And I don't see how a universe creating itself points to a designer.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 1:12 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 5:20 PM Huntard has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 116 of 185 (486581)
10-22-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Huntard
10-22-2008 3:16 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Huntard writes:

And I don't see how a universe creating itself points to a designer

You've just said - "And I don't see how a pool of energy creating itself into a universe and life points to a designer".

When you think of universe and life, have a look around your room. What a wonderful coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into a house for your 100 trillion cells human body by chance. What a wonderful coincidence that energy can create a mother and father for you. What a wonderful coincidence that energy created a planet for you that could sustain your existence. What a great coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into computers that we can use to communicate over the internet. But wait - what are you? If you know the answer to this question, you've unlocked all the mysteries.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 3:16 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 5:44 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2008 6:12 PM Agobot has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 185 (486583)
10-22-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Agobot
10-22-2008 5:20 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Agobot writes:

You've just said - "And I don't see how a pool of energy creating itself into a universe and life points to a designer".

When you think of universe and life, have a look around your room. What a wonderful coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into a house for your 100 trillion cells human body by chance. What a wonderful coincidence that energy can create a mother and father for you. What a wonderful coincidence that energy created a planet for you that could sustain your existence. What a great coincidence that energy managed to turn itself into computers that we can use to communicate over the internet. But wait - what are you? If you know the answer to this question, you've unlocked all the mysteries.


I'm not sure I'm following you, if it created ITSELF, there is no outside creator, now is there. Unless you're meaning the universe itself is the creator.

As to what I am, I'd say nothing more then a collection of atoms and energy. I don't feel particularly enlightened by that though. There are still enough mysteries left for me.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 5:20 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 6:09 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 118 of 185 (486584)
10-22-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
10-22-2008 5:44 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Huntard writes:

I'm not sure I'm following you, if it created ITSELF, there is no outside creator, now is there. Unless you're meaning the universe itself is the creator.

It surely created itself, it's just that your description is not thourough. What you believe in, is not possible without a blueprint, physical laws and some constants(which couldn't come from anywhere but a creator). Your belief is religious and is the product of an overly secular society of which i am a part as well, but the efforts to keep the idea of creators aside is worthwhile. The ultimate truth of reality is creepy.

Huntard writes:

As to what I am, I'd say nothing more then a collection of atoms and energy. I don't feel particularly enlightened by that though. There are still enough mysteries left for me.

You are not just atoms and energy(which are the same thing BTW). You have no idea how much more you are and how little you are from a different perspective. The difference between the 2 is what you call "I". That difference is so hard to explain that you cannot but agree with Einstein:

"We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us."

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 5:44 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 185 (486585)
10-22-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Agobot
10-22-2008 5:20 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
If you know the answer to this question, you've unlocked all the mysteries.

If there has to be a first "uncaused cause" according to your thinking why would you not conclude that the one thing that you know exists is it?

On what basis would you conclude a yet more complex phenomenon that itself is even more unlikely to be uncaused? Especially given that there is no rational or evidenced reason to suppose this even more complex phenomenon actually exists?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 5:20 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 6:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 120 of 185 (486586)
10-22-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
10-22-2008 6:12 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Straggler writes:

If there has to be a first "uncaused cause" according to your thinking why would you not conclude that the one thing that you know exists is it?

Because we are mortals, and because we didn't create ourselves. We are not even owners of what we think we are(your all body morphology wasn't chosen by you, it was given to you whether you like it or). We are just a product, a result of a chain of events.

Straggler writes:

On what basis would you conclude a yet more complex phenomenon that itself is even more unlikely to be uncaused? Especially given that there is no rational or evidenced reason to suppose this even more complex phenomenon actually exists

Evidence? The little speck of energy that floats into an ocean of energy that it calls an universe wants evidence for the source of the energy? It almost sounds romantic. I wish we could establish a connection with the creators, i bet what you call science can do that one day.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"

-Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2008 6:12 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2008 6:42 PM Agobot has responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017