Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Rodibidably
Junior Member (Idle past 5678 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-10-2008


Message 16 of 327 (481374)
09-10-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Blue Jay
09-10-2008 3:48 PM


The three examples that first springs to mind are slavery, pedophilia, and the holocaust.
If "god" is all powerful and all good, and knows everything before hand, then "god" would not allow such things to happen.
However if you drop any one of those three, it's concievable that these things could happen inspite of a "god".
I know that many people say these things are part of "god's" bigger plan, and meant to teach us a lesson that we just don't understand, but frankly I find that to be disingenuous.
If people want to claim that things such as stem cell research are wrong in god's view, or that gay marrage should be outlawed, or that people should not read Harry Potter because these things offend "god", then we should be able to understand "god" on the big things as well (like slavery, which IMO is just about the worst thing one human, or group of humans, can do to another human, or group of humans).
IMO either "god" knew these things would happen, and as a "good" person wanted to stop them but was powerless
or "god" knew, and how the power, but did not give a shit
or "god" had the power, and wanted to, but did not know in advance (either that it would happen, or how to stop it)
or some variation of these three to different degrees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 3:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 5:13 PM Rodibidably has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 17 of 327 (481377)
09-10-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 4:56 PM


Hi, Rodibidably.
Rodibidably writes:
If "god" is all powerful and all good, and knows everything before hand, then "god" would not allow such things to happen.
Sticking with the perfect scores for knowledge and power, could God also be just plain ol' "good," instead of "all good?" Do you feel that the bad things He has done (or has allowed) balance out the good things that He does (or allows).

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 4:56 PM Rodibidably has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 5:25 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 19 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 5:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Rodibidably
Junior Member (Idle past 5678 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-10-2008


Message 18 of 327 (481379)
09-10-2008 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
09-10-2008 5:13 PM


Well for many reasons, primarily lack of evidence, I don't accept that "god" exists. But I replied with that assumption that a god does exists for the sake of this post, I jsut want ot make that clear before this discussion goes too far, and you assume something incorrect.
I suppose that "god" could be "good" but not all good, and willingly (by which I mean "god" knows how to stop something and has the power to do so) allow some bad things to happen as a lesson.
For instance, allowing one child to be raped might teach all parents to protect their children better.
Allowing one person (or group of people) to be enslaved for a short time, might help show humanity the errors of our ways and acceptance of others who are different.
HOWEVER, allowing children to be raped on a regular basis by sich individuals does not "continue" to teach us a lesson, it does nothing but add pain and misery to the lives of those involved (the child, and those who care for the child).
Allowing millions of people to be enslaved for centuries (or more recently killed because they were the "wrong" color or sexuality, etc) does not help bring us together, it shows us the inhumanity of mankind.
So I guess my answer to your question would be that if "god" has the knowledge and power to stop such things from happening, and refuses to do so, then "god" can NOT be "all-good" or even "generally good".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 5:13 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 8:05 PM Rodibidably has replied

Rodibidably
Junior Member (Idle past 5678 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-10-2008


Message 19 of 327 (481380)
09-10-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
09-10-2008 5:13 PM


As to if the good things that "god" has done outweight the bad things "god" has done, I'd say no.
If Hitler was the nicest guy in the world (helped little old ladies across the street, fed and clothed the homeless, adopted orphans, etc), except for that whole little holocaust thing, would we think any better of him, or would we still concider him one of the most vile people in all of history?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 5:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 327 (481417)
09-10-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 5:25 PM


Hi, Rodibidably.
Thanks for your comments.
Rodibidably writes:
I jsut want ot make that clear before this discussion goes too far, and you assume something incorrect.
I haven't made any assumptions about you yet, so why worry that I will in the future?
I personally do believe in God, but I'm primarily a science person, so you won't see me argue on the creationist side at all.
Rodibidably writes:
I suppose that "god" could be "good" but not all good, and willingly (by which I mean "god" knows how to stop something and has the power to do so) allow some bad things to happen as a lesson.
Right, I agree. There are many other possibilities. But, we're not here to discuss His hypothetical purposes. Looking only at the physical world (this includes the crimes you mentioned), you have concluded that God is, at best, neutral (neither "good" nor "bad").
Let's try another permutation now:
Say God is omnibenevolent and omniscient (5 on both scales). What is the maximum "power" score that this God could have. He could still be powerful (seeing that He had the ability to create the Earth and all that), while still being unable to stop things like rape or war. I think this would earn Him a 4 for power, thus giving him a maximum score of 14/15.
What do you think?
-----
P.S. I did bad math: you said "12," and I read "13." Your "12" puts two bars at 5 and one at 2 (below neutral), not 3 (neutral) like I thought before. Sorry I misread that.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 5:25 PM Rodibidably has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 8:22 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Rodibidably
Junior Member (Idle past 5678 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 09-10-2008


Message 21 of 327 (481423)
09-10-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
09-10-2008 8:05 PM


Let's try it like this:
IMO, to allow pedophila, slavery, holocaust, etc, the best possible conclusion one can come to for "god" would be one of the following:
Power | Knowledge | "goodness"
5 | 5 | 2 (all powerful and omniscient, but a dick)
5 | 2 | 5 (all powerful and really nice, but a dumbass)
2 | 5 | 5 (onmiicient and really nice, but impotent to do anything on a big scale, such as giving hitler a heart attack in lets say the mid 1930's)
4 | 4 | 3
4 | 3 | 4
4 | 4 | 3
There are tow other cases that are possible:
1) You could also make the case for "god" to be less than one of these sceanrios (i.e. impotent, stupid, and a dick), but I would say that IF the typical understanding of "god" exists, that
2) God is really powerful, really smart, really good, but is ignoring this planet (i.e. set all the laws of the universe in motion, started up the big bang, and then left it alone for 14 billion years and counting), or at least NEVER interfearing (i.e. we're some type opf cosmic experiment, and "god" wants to see what happens).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 09-10-2008 8:05 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:09 AM Rodibidably has not replied
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:13 AM Rodibidably has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 22 of 327 (500046)
02-22-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 8:22 PM


These post were moved from the Who designed the Designer thread at admins request. It is not a direct reponse to Rodibidably last poste here.
Stile writes:
In order for such a sentence to seem true (even on the surface) to anyone, it requires a defintion of "real" (where you say "real possibility") that has nothing to do with describing the truth about the universe we live in.
The definition of "real" here would be more in line with "existing in theoretical imagination." Our imagination is "real." And every idea within our imagination is "real." But not every idea in our imagination actually describes the truth about the universe we live in. Most of those ideas are only "real" as they exist theoretically within our imagination. Most of them are simply wrong or wishful thinking when concering the truth of the universe we live in. Your idea of Design is indistinguishable from these types of theoretical, imaginary thoughts.
Besides stating the obvious in a very verbose manner, actually you have got it exacally BACKWARDS. Our imaginations are in no way real. Concepts thoughts or ideas only become real or demonstratable when compared against a verfiable physical reality, they exhibit certain characteristics which coorbortate very real possibities and conclusions from our deductive reasoning processes. When I conduct an experiment iin the physical world, the results of that experiment will corroborate my conclusions or it will not.
You are equivocating.
Correct -> both possibilities exist "as possibilites."
Incorrect, both possibilites describe the truth of the universe we live in.
Since I did not say what you are implying in the second part here, I would not be equivocating. Since both exist as very possibilites, (intitally), it is therefore rational and acceptable to believe in one of those possibilites.
There are "very real possibilities" like not being created.
There are "only theoretical" possibilities that do not describe the truth of the universe we live in, like being created.
Your playing with words and concepts will not assist you cause. Since the truth of the universe is also that it could have been created or designed, against obvious design and others initial arguments to sustain the design argument, it therefore describes a TRUTH that is very real. Either both of your above principles apply to both created or not, or they do not. You cant have it both ways. If theoretical applies to design, then it applies to self-constructed, self-existent, beause there is no way you can demonstrate it is a produc of itself. Now, do you wish to contend that your imaginations for the origins of the existence of the universe are VERY REAL, if so how would you do this? If very real applies to not designed, it would apply to designed.
In other words I am not equivocating, but if I am so are you.
All "very real" possibilities about the truth of our universe contain verifiable, objective evidence. Design does not have this. Design is, therefore, not a "very real" possibility, but it is like the rest of the possibilities that exist only in our imagination and have nothing to do with the truth about our universe.
Design is a part of reality whether it is purposely designed or is naturally designed, it is something you can touch, see and observe. Call it Function or design, whichever you like, but it is definitaley a part of reality, therefore a real possibility. Playing with words does not change that which is real and observable.
You continue to equivocate. You continue to demand that you must be taken seriously. You continue to say that it is obvious and easy.
Yet you're unable to show such. And you are unable to even provide a scrap of verifiable, objective evidence that so much as points in the direction of your idea.
Such confusion is generally compartmentalized into the areas of irrationality, delusion and insanity.
Here you use the words YOU or YOURS seven times in the above quote. My friend it is not ME it is reality and that which is observable and demonstratable. It is reality and its makeup that DEMONSTRATES these principles which I am advocating, I dont need to do anything. It is YOU that is avoiding the obvious.
But please go on, I'm sure many people are extremely interested in seeing what you're going to try next.
Thank you I will. As a matter of fact I am now off to Onifre's latest blatthering.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 8:22 PM Rodibidably has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 02-24-2009 11:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 02-24-2009 11:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 23 of 327 (500047)
02-22-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 8:22 PM


This post is also the latest post from myself to Onifre from the Who designed the designer, thread and not a response to Rodibidably.
Onifre writes:
I did not question reality I questioned your perception of it. Since nothing can be declaired as absolute, it will remain theorietical.
Uh, Yes you did. I would advice you to go back and read that quote. While you might have questioned my perception, you also questioned reality itself and I believe you did it again in the above qupote.
If you are going to muse philosophically about reality you must understand certain rules about doing that.
Exacally. And one major way to muse about it, is to imagine that it is not real or absolute in character, which allows you to come to such conclusions as, finite things always existed, they created themselves and its clear function or design is a product of itself. I totally agree with you.
None of this was an answer for your contradictions in the other post.
Since there was no contradiction in the first place, yes it was a valid response to the question you asked.
Stile did not admit anything about a "design(er)", he said theoretical there was a possibility for "design", period. You added "design(er)" to it. Even, like you said, if you proved things were designed, the design(er) would still be imaginative and unwarrented and theoretical because, as you say, design can still be caused by natural process.
Would you like to deal with those contradicting statements above or not?
Whoa son, slow down, you minds in a tizzy running wild here. Yes Stile did admit to a designer when he answered yes to the question of possibility. Throwing words at reality like theoretical do not change reality. As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways. It is not reasonable to say that all in the universe points to it being a product of itself, given other facts and call this a real possibility, then turn around and say design is only a theoretical possibility, such statements make no sense. Either both are real possibilities or both or theoretical. However, it doesnt matter (no pun intended), because WORDS dont change reality, they only change the argument for the sake of argument.
Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding.
And could you be specific...please?
Example:
Does the Earth orbit the Sun because it was "designed" to do so, or is it doing so because matter found itself trapped in an orbit around the Sun?
Was the Earth "designed" for life, or did life arrise due to the Earth being at the precise distance from it's host Sun?
Was the Earth "designed" to be this far from the Sun, or is it the result of the Earths mass?
Was the Sun "designed" at that specific size so that it would go Red Giant and consume the Earth in the process ending all life, or is it's size the result of it's core mass/energy?
Just a few more points if you should be so kind as to indulge me:
Come on Onifre, you can do better than this, so I may conclude from your above statements that you believe there is DEFINATELY design in the universe, or would that require me to twist your words to fit my own thinking, as you do mine.
Secondly, what part of the statement where I said that, design was not the initial way or all in all to estalish that a desinger exists, to believe in design in nature. Therefore, it would be necessary to establish or consider other preliminary factors before even coming to the above conclusion about a designer. On e approaches design after one believes correctly that finite matter that is contiegent on something else, could not be a product of itself. Oh yeah I forgot, that only theoretical correct, I only imagined the finite character of the universe.
Therefore they were DESIGNED to operate in the exact MINUTNESS AND DETAIL, that allows life to exist in the universe, for the purpose which they were intended and created. I hope this answers your question, because frankly I dont see where you are going with it.
Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?
I already did:
Bertot writes:
Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding.
In other words my statement about it happening naturally is based on a presumption in the first place.
I think the point we are all making against you is that there is NO obvious design in nature. You have not shown were design is. All we see is adaptive organisms changing as per their enviromental needs. Where do you see design?
Now your catching on son, the design is there before one even gets to the design you observe in nature. The design in nature only corroborates facts that are demonstratable by the nature of the universe itself. Design is secondary to other facts. design corroborates existing facts.
However, I doubt that anyone that cannot see the minute detail and design in the "adaptive organisms changing as per thier enviormental needs", will see anything else that makes much sense. Again disagreeing with design is not the same as demonstrating that it is not observable or real. If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist. Something or some logical orderly process is allowing you and me to use these very fine instruments to type out these very logical and orderly arguments, especially in my case.
A motor is designed for a specific purpose. It does not adapt to different environments. It does not alter it's functions to suit new conditions. It serves one specific purpose. It clearly is designed with one application in mind.
Could you say the same about organisms who have evolved for 3.5 billion years, who have gone through thousands of morphological changes, who have continously been driven to evolve by a randomly changing environment?
What specific purpose were organisms designed for? To stay alive at all cost? Is that it? Is that what you mean by design?
How could you point to design specifics when the organism is constantly changing?
Really thats interesting. So when your driving down the road and your wipers to the vehicle come on automatically, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When you switch to 4 wheel drive as in the case of my Lexus, would you say the designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment. When the air bag comes out when you hit a tree, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT its enviornment.
When the vehicle does anything ATUOMATICALLY without your instructions, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment?
If one argues that there is still a driver, I would bring up the fact of drones and ICBMs, or all terrain guided missles tthat adapt to thier envionment as designed.
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Any other questions.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 8:22 PM Rodibidably has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2009 11:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 02-22-2009 1:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 02-22-2009 2:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 327 (500049)
02-22-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 11:13 AM


Natural selection
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in.
Natural selection is wonderful, isn't it?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 327 (500053)
02-22-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 11:13 AM


While you might have questioned my perception, you also questioned reality itself and I believe you did it again in the above qupote.
No, just yours. You cannot claim anything about reality that you percieve as "absolute" therefore it remains theoretical.
Yes Stile did admit to a designer when he answered yes to the question of possibility.
No. He did not. He said there is a "theoretical" possibility for design in nature, the designer has nothing to do with it. You yourself have said that design could have arrose naturally, no designer needed.
The contradiction remains. I assume you just refuse to see it and refuse to answer it. Typical.
As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways. It is not reasonable to say that all in the universe points to it being a product of itself, given other facts and call this a real possibility, then turn around and say design is only a theoretical possibility, such statements make no sense.
No one has said this. Both senarios are equally theoretical. That the objective evidence points to natural causes says nothing to the fact that BOTH senarios remain fundamentally theoretical.
Either both are real possibilities or both or theoretical.
They are BOTH fundamentally theoretical.
my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place.
Sorry, I don't know what "eternal in character" means or "a product of itself". Could you be a bit more clear?
Come on Onifre, you can do better than this, so I may conclude from your above statements that you believe there is DEFINATELY design in the universe, or would that require me to twist your words to fit my own thinking, as you do mine.
Those where examples, I was hoping for you to give me specific examples. If you can't thats cool. I didn't think you could give any specific examples of design. You have only been arguing for the percieved notion of design.
Secondly, what part of the statement where I said that, design was not the initial way or all in all to estalish that a desinger exists, to believe in design in nature.
Is this a question? Sorry, I'm having trouble following your words here. I have no clue what this means.
On e approaches design after one believes correctly that finite matter that is contiegent on something else, could not be a product of itself.
If one comes to this conclusion then one does not understand the principle laws of quantum mechanics which are very much real. Virtual particles - quantum fluctuations, violate your above statement.
oni writes:
Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?
bertot writes:
I already did:
Bertot writes:
Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding.
This did not answer the question. Can you give a brief description of the "design principle"?
If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist.
Is that the best you have?
You think the universe operates in a logical fashion? Have you really looked at what's out there? We are just now shaking off all of the theories were thought to be logic about the universe that have existed since the dawn of thinking man. ALL we had were logical conclusions that were wrong. NOW, due to certain scientist and certain theories, there has been some foward progress into a more logical understanding, but it is still far from making enough logical sense to humans to draw any conclusion with certainty. That is if you are looking at it thru the eyes of science, or objective evidence.
Quantum mechanics defies all logical understanding, it does not operate in an orderly fashion. Without going off topic, as these are just examples, the universe, at it's most fundamental level, loses ALL sense of logic, order, known function and understanding. So, your conclusion that the universe operates in an orderly fashion and logically, is far from being a correct assertion.
Really thats interesting. So when your driving down the road and your wipers to the vehicle come on automatically, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When you switch to 4 wheel drive as in the case of my Lexus, would you say the designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment. When the air bag comes out when you hit a tree, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT its enviornment.
When the vehicle does anything ATUOMATICALLY without your instructions, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment?
This would work if I had said vehicle, since I said motor:
Oni writes:
A motor is designed for a specific purpose.
I have no clue what you're talking about.
A motor is created for one specific funtion/application/purpose. It does not adapt and change it's functions due to environmental changes. That your Lexus has been programed to do all the things you mentioned doesn't mean your engine changes it's function. Terrible analogy, Bertot.
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Any other questions.
Yes, can you show evidence to prove that?
Edited by onifre, : clearer point on the "logic" issue.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:13 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-23-2009 9:46 AM onifre has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 327 (500063)
02-22-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 11:13 AM


Bertot writes:
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in.
Like Onifre, I'm curious about the evidence that the process of descent with modification and natural selection was designed rather than occurred naturally.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 27 of 327 (500127)
02-23-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
02-22-2009 1:08 PM


Onifre writes:
No, just yours. You cannot claim anything about reality that you percieve as "absolute" therefore it remains theoretical.
So then my original contention was correct, you dont believe really that reality is real or actual, your just pretending at it. Is your existence and the things around you real or theoretical. Actually this question is of the utmost importance when considering this issue.
No. He did not. He said there is a "theoretical" possibility for design in nature, the designer has nothing to do with it. You yourself have said that design could have arrose naturally, no designer needed.
The contradiction remains. I assume you just refuse to see it and refuse to answer it. Typical
The only contradiction is where you refuse to acknowledge evidence and reality as such. You then throw words at both of them and pretend that is takes care of the matter. If one cant even see reality as actual or real, how will one ever see any design in anything. I am surprised you believe there is design in mans creation, since you did not even see the computer in front of you actually designed. Maybe your computer was not designed, since you did not wittness it. Or maybe we could say its only a theoretical possibility, your computer just happened, or that it wasd theoretiacally designed by man.
No one has said this. Both senarios are equally theoretical. That the objective evidence points to natural causes says nothing to the fact that BOTH senarios remain fundamentally theoretical.
Thats called wishful thinking, the objective evidence does not point to natural causes. Even if it did the mechanism would need a source and that is the crux of the issue. Theoretical only helps you avoid the fact that only one of these ways is actually real, but since both are very VIABLE explanations, both should be presented as such in the classroom. That is, I am assuming you have no way of demonstrating that the natural proposition can be demonstrated any better than the design contention. If you can knock yourself out. My prediction is that you will end right back at groound zero, with both propositions on the table.
Not liking the design concept is not a refutation of it and should not exclude it out of the science classroom as a valid explanation. If both are EQUALLY theoretical, then both are explanations for the origins of the material universe. I simply dont see how you or any judge could avoid this point. Biut please by all means feel free to present any material you believe POINTS to natural causes, Im up for knocking it to the ground.
They are BOTH fundamentally theoretical.
You really dont understand how this works do you? Equal propositions that are theoretical are propositions and that are not demonstratable completely are both viable propositions, especially when those are the only explanations. Even your position will not allow you to discard the other in the context of explanations in a scientific manner. Since design in even the smallest structures (DNA) is atleast appearent it is of great value in the "theoretical", explanation. Of the only two logical, "theoretical" propositions, as you call it, ONE is real and actual, atleast from our perspective. If one wishes to bandy the reality of reality, then ofcurse, we should make no deductions in the science class room either. The "theoretical" explanations of evolution should be discarded, in favor of simply explaning how things presently work or operate.
But since both propositions are even "theoretical" possibilites, even as you have now admitted and both are nondemonstratable, absolutely, as you admit, then both should be included or excluded together. How in the world can you avoid this obvious conclusion.
Sorry, I don't know what "eternal in character" means or "a product of itself". Could you be a bit more clear?
And if you are going to be evasive and play the dumb card, we will probably not make much process. I dont mind being more specific when yu stop being so obviously evasive, agreed?
Those where examples, I was hoping for you to give me specific examples. If you can't thats cool. I didn't think you could give any specific examples of design. You have only been arguing for the percieved notion of design.
Would the obvious design in the single cell and its overwhelming compleity help you, I doubt it. Would the structure, order and complexity of DNA, help you I dobut it. Would the structure, design and complexity of a blue whale help you , I doubt it. When all of the intracacies of DNA are laid out and demonstrated, the skeptic has only tosay, "well I dont see that". So whats yuor point Onifre, that you can disagree with anything presented. In turn I can simply state that to ignore such complexity or intracacies is both foolish and absurd. So the collective evidence would suggest that while design is not absolutely provable, neither is a natural explanation.
I think, even as evasive as you are, one could cleary see the value of presenting both sides of the issue, that is unless we are going to stick our heads in the sand and say, I dont understand this or that concept, that makes no sense to me or nothing is absolute really and use these complaints as explanations to exclude viable possibilites. Man Im good. Not mention the fact, but I will anyway, that order and reason require a source and purpose, not mention that the materials themself deserve an explanation in possibilites, if we are going to be reasonable.
If one comes to this conclusion then one does not understand the principle laws of quantum mechanics which are very much real. Virtual particles - quantum fluctuations, violate your above statement.
My conclusion is not vilolated in the least. It is your present understanding of what truth, evidence or design is or is not. Ill explain in a second.
Bertot writes:
If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist.
Onifre writes[qs]Is that the best you have?[/as]
You dont understand much about debate do you, you are being very evasive, AGAIN. If I present an explanation of something as I did above, it is your job to refute that contention or explanation, not just wave the hand and say it is not valid or dismiss it outright. Ill accept your inablity to do this as an admission in that respect, or Ill wait for a refutation of the design concept I have now repeadly presented.
You think the universe operates in a logical fashion? Have you really looked at what's out there? We are just now shaking off all of the theories were thought to be logic about the universe that have existed since the dawn of thinking man. ALL we had were logical conclusions that were wrong. NOW, due to certain scientist and certain theories, there has been some foward progress into a more logical understanding, but it is still far from making enough logical sense to humans to draw any conclusion with certainty. That is if you are looking at it thru the eyes of science, or objective evidence.
Quantum mechanics defies all logical understanding, it does not operate in an orderly fashion. Without going off topic, as these are just examples, the universe, at it's most fundamental level, loses ALL sense of logic, order, known function and understanding. So, your conclusion that the universe operates in an orderly fashion and logically, is far from being a correct assertion.
Even in a process that defies what is local to understanding or that which seem to defy OUR logic, it is still operating in the manner it was designed or has come to be. While people in the eleventh century probably understood the concept of a tree, they probably did not understand the principle of decomposition after it fell to the ground. Does this mean that it did not do what it did or was intended. Thier understanding of that concept would be about as well as ours in the universe. They are still designed laws whether we understand them or not. Surely even you can see this simple point, correct.
Believing the sun revolves around the earth did not and does not change its order or design. When we discover how it works, we will only discover that it is still ORDER and DESIGN. Now, you will notice I responded to what you stated and didnt only ask, do you have anything better. BTW, do you have anything better?
This would work if I had said vehicle, since I said motor:
But I am the one that brought the vehicle up in the first place and I said "Motor Vehicle". If none of the before reasons stated, as to why you are being evasive, dont prove true, this one certainly will. I provided you with a clear example of how a designed item can function and adapt to its enviornment as it was designed and intended and what do you do with it, call, it a terrible analogy. But first you simply dismiss its force and application, reagrrange what I said in the example and then disregard it altogether. Here is a clear example of your evasive nature.
A motor is created for one specific funtion/application/purpose. It does not adapt and change it's functions due to environmental changes. That your Lexus has been programed to do all the things you mentioned doesn't mean your engine changes it's function. Terrible analogy, Bertot.
What do you do next? You acknowledge that the motor was designed and that the vehicle was programmed to do all these things and then make the brilliant explanation that the motor hasnt changed its function. Well, what in the world does that mean?
My example to your contention that nature adapts to its enviornment and makes changes should be suffiecent to anyone to demonstrate that a designed item, even a single cell, could and was designed to do what it was intended. Like the MOTOR VEHICLE or the MOTOR, it may be proggramed, to adapt or make changes as neede, or simply die.
Anyway, the fact that natural processes, have and do make changes and adapt to thier enviornment in no way demonstrates a lack of design. In fact the fact that they do this and are as complex and intercate as they are would actually suggest otherwise. At bare (bear) minimum it strongly suggests that design is a very real possibility and should be presented otherwise.
Bertot writes:
Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Any other questions.
O writes:
Yes, can you show evidence to prove that?
In this discussion it is becoming obvious that the person that believes in design is required to PROVE everything and the one that does not is simply required to make a statement about thenatural causes and have it left at that. A single cell, DNA and other items are proof of themselves. Your repeaded request to present more detail, without dealing with the initial expalnations in the first place are becoming more and more obvious. Onifre, did you see anyone design the actual computer in front of you, yet you believe it has and was designed. Is the design principle of yourcomputer lost or not valid because you did not see it designed. Your vehicle that performs or adapts in a manner it was designed is not lost on you is it, because ypu did not see it designd or watch evolve from a less complex type of Ford (I am assuming as a out of work comedian, you might drive a Ford) Try atleast be reasonable in the discussion.
Your simple taks is to demonstrate absolutely why this is not design. Go for it.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 02-22-2009 1:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-23-2009 11:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 02-23-2009 7:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 327 (500133)
02-23-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-23-2009 9:46 AM


Bertot writes:
Your simple taks is to demonstrate absolutely why this is not design. Go for it.
You have it backwards. Theories aren't accepted because no one has been able to falsify them. They become accepted because of the evidence in their favor. What is the evidence in favor of design and of a designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-23-2009 9:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 327 (500143)
02-23-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:17 AM


My Two Cents....
Of the three attributes you have defined I think that the highest possible set of ratings I would give is -
Power - Omnipotent
Intelligence - Omniscient
Benevolence - Neutral
An omniscient and omnipotent God could, from our perspective, have done a much better job but if benevolently neutral had no reason to do so.
Thus the struggle for life and the inherent reliance of nature on pain, death and suffering are just the products of this indifference and neutrality as much as are the concepts of good, beauty, love etc. etc. etc. Maybe the mix makes sense if we consider that the God in question seeks the most entertaining end result from his perspective with little care for our perspective at all.
If a neutral God looking down at us, much as we might watch an ant colony, is seeking something worth watching then maybe the current mix is just the most conducive to that.
But I think omnipotent, omniscient and indifferently neutral provides the highest total consistent combination from the choices you have given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 327 (500173)
02-23-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-23-2009 9:46 AM


Is your existence and the things around you real or theoretical.
Theoretically they are real. All of the evidence I have points to it being real, but I could very well be trapped in a Matrix type program experiencing all of this and never know for sure. I cannot claim that the reality I experience is absolutely real.
The only point this is for is when you say you perceive things to be designed. That is theoretically possible, but not absolutely true. Even if you had some objective evidence to point to, it still remains theoretically possible.
The point then is to weigh the evidence.
The only contradiction is where you refuse to acknowledge evidence and reality as such. You then throw words at both of them and pretend that is takes care of the matter. If one cant even see reality as actual or real, how will one ever see any design in anything. I am surprised you believe there is design in mans creation, since you did not even see the computer in front of you actually designed. Maybe your computer was not designed, since you did not wittness it. Or maybe we could say its only a theoretical possibility, your computer just happened, or that it wasd theoretiacally designed by man.
The contradiction remains. Stile said "theoretically possible" for design, he never mentioned a "designer".
Thats called wishful thinking, the objective evidence does not point to natural causes.
As of yet that is all the evidence points to. This is the concensus by those who study the evidence, if you have evidence that disproves it other than "I see design" please bring it forward.
But please by all means feel free to present any material you believe POINTS to natural causes,
Really?
- formation of planets
- formation of the Sun
- Gravity
- all of the elements on the Periodic Table
- human life...all life -(not abiogenesis, I mean reproduction)
- a tree growing
- Sun rise
- solar eclipes
- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc..............
If both are EQUALLY theoretical, then both are explanations for the origins of the material universe.
If you notice I said the objective evidence points to natural causes, this is the consensus amongst science, that is what is taught.
There has been more than enough time in the ID propaganda camp to put together viable evidence that points to design. And that Bertot is what has been continuously shot down. ID hasn't made it's evidence clear, therefore they will continue to be outside looking in.
But since both propositions are even "theoretical" possibilites, even as you have now admitted and both are nondemonstratable, absolutely, as you admit, then both should be included or excluded together.
The flying spaghetti monster is a theoretical possibility too. So is a multi god type system, or multi designer. Nothing says it has to be one. But the key is, where does the objective evidence lead you, it leads to natural causes.
And if you are going to be evasive and play the dumb card, we will probably not make much process. I dont mind being more specific when yu stop being so obviously evasive, agreed?
I study science, I have never heard the term "eternal in character" or "a product of itself". Can you be a bit more specific.
So you don't think I'm being evasive, I'll give examples:
1)Do you mean it has always existed? - eternal in character.
2)Do you mean created from itself? - a product of itself
For 1, I agree, For 2, I do not. (2) would require a moment of creation. A moment when there was nothing and them something. Since the very notion of a causal moment before anything existed makes no sense, I do not agree. Unless I miss understand what "a product of itself" means, then could you be a bit more clear?
Would the obvious design in the single cell and its overwhelming compleity help you, I doubt it.
There is NO obvious design in the cell. The cell is made up of independent parts, that is the only obvious thing about it. And complexity means nothing in defense for design, I thought by now that was a moot point already?
What do you see so obvious in the cell that points to design?
When all of the intracacies of DNA are laid out and demonstrated, the skeptic has only tosay, "well I dont see that".
So you think because DNA is complex to you, it requires design? Thats it, thats the proof?
So the collective evidence would suggest that while design is not absolutely provable, neither is a natural explanation.
All of the collective evidence for natural phenomena are organized neatly within the frame work of science. Not one single piece of evidence, within the frame work of science, exists to support a design hypothesis. It remains theoretical in principle, as a possiblity, as does a diest type God who created then left it alone, it however fails at presenting objective evidence to support it. If they had it, it would already be in science books.
All you are doing is telling me I'm blind for not seeing design. Sorry if I take what's in science books as a better explanation for natural phenomena rather what you perceive to be obvious.
I, like most on this site, don't see it. Please show us the objective evidence. Go deeper that "look it's complex" or "it looks like it was designed".
You dont understand much about debate do you, you are being very evasive, AGAIN. If I present an explanation of something as I did above, it is your job to refute that contention or explanation, not just wave the hand and say it is not valid or dismiss it outright. Ill accept your inablity to do this as an admission in that respect, or Ill wait for a refutation of the design concept I have now repeadly presented.
What are you talking about, I followed the statement with a full paragraphs worth of explanation.
You even quote it after:
Oni writes:
You think the universe operates in a logical fashion? Have you really looked at what's out there? We are just now shaking off all of the theories were thought to be logic about the universe that have existed since the dawn of thinking man. ALL we had were logical conclusions that were wrong. NOW, due to certain scientist and certain theories, there has been some foward progress into a more logical understanding, but it is still far from making enough logical sense to humans to draw any conclusion with certainty. That is if you are looking at it thru the eyes of science, or objective evidence.
Quantum mechanics defies all logical understanding, it does not operate in an orderly fashion. Without going off topic, as these are just examples, the universe, at it's most fundamental level, loses ALL sense of logic, order, known function and understanding. So, your conclusion that the universe operates in an orderly fashion and logically, is far from being a correct assertion.
No evasion Bertot. You then reply to it:
Bertot writes:
Even in a process that defies what is local to understanding or that which seem to defy OUR logic, it is still operating in the manner it was designed or has come to be. While people in the eleventh century probably understood the concept of a tree, they probably did not understand the principle of decomposition after it fell to the ground. Does this mean that it did not do what it did or was intended. Thier understanding of that concept would be about as well as ours in the universe. They are still designed laws whether we understand them or not. Surely even you can see this simple point, correct.
Believing the sun revolves around the earth did not and does not change its order or design. When we discover how it works, we will only discover that it is still ORDER and DESIGN. Now, you will notice I responded to what you stated and didnt only ask, do you have anything better. BTW, do you have anything better?
You didn't even respond to what I wrote. You think the above explanation delt with laws about QM?
Let me explain it simple:
- There is no order
- There is no logic to it
- It does not function in an orderly fashion
- Predictions can't be made about it
It defies a logical, orderly, understandable universe that cannot be described intelligently with design. There is no design function in QM that you could point to, go ahead and try.
Furthermore, QM won't be understood any further, because, it is actually understood to be like that. One of the principles of QM is that it works like that. QM does not look designed by any means. If the universe at it's earliest point is QM in nature, which all evidence points to this, then at that point the universe is not orderly, or understandable. That it has become so now, due to the cosmological expansion, is a tribute to the laws of physics and how matter forms and what space and cooler temperatures do for the formation of solid matter.
You can step back and say it was all designed to do that but no evidence exists to support such an incredulous attemt at an explanation. I understand that you see it this way and I don't think any further attempt by me to prove my point to you will be of an help. If an incredulous answer such as "I see design, because I believe there is a designer", satisfies you then cool. I have nothing more to add.
I don't believe there is cause to believe anything is designed. I see everything functioning naturally. If you say it was designed to look that way, even though I don't agree, it is theoretically possible, BUT, so is a deist type god, so is a multi god system, so is the flying spaghetti monster - so is any number of metaphysical explanation that is out there. If possibility is all we are looking for than any number of god-type hypothesis will do.
Since I see no evidence to support these gods, I see no reason to assume design when it seems natural. However, if/when I see evidence for gods, then I may change my mind about design. But then again, god could still be deistic in nature, so even that wouldn't make design anymore true, but it would help it a bit.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-23-2009 9:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2009 9:56 AM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024