Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence of God
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 121 of 213 (62300)
10-23-2003 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Joralex
10-22-2003 2:20 PM


quote:
Not true! In an excavation you may may find thousands of stones yet the stone that has been 'worked' towards a purpose (e.g., to make an arrowhead) stands out.
The worked stone stands out only because we have an understanding
of what a worked stone looks like. Eg, stone hendge has stones that
show marks consistent with them being worked.
Show a flint arrowhead to a child and they will, most likely,
just think it's a neat stone. Even experts may debate the
manufacturedness of artifacts ... take the undersea structures
I mentioned in the previous post ... the hand of man is not
even easy to identify!!
quote:
If you came across the following pattern scratched on the rock of another planet:
. - .
..
... - .. - ...
....
..... - ... - .... - .....
......
....... - .... - ..... - .......
you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern and you'd be logically & scientifically correct in your conclusion since there are no naturally-occurring phenomena that generate such patterns.
You might ... I would need to analyse the pattern first.
Immediately concluding an intelligence (or even that it IS a
pattern) would be UNscientific and irrational.
You have based the assumption of intelligence on the absence
of a phenomenon that we do not KNOW to be absent.
quote:
Same difference... God has left His "fingerprints" everywhere except that many people simply prefer to interpret those fingerprints as something else. After all, if they acknowledged them as belonging to God then they are no longer "free" to do their own thing and we can't have that, can we?
According to the judeo-christian religions and my meagre observations
of humanity people ARE free to do as they please ... and do
with alarming frequency across the whole of recorded history.
I don't see acknowledging a god that says 'Do as you like, I'll
punish you for it but won't stop you' would be a bar to
any kind of behaviour -- do you have children?
quote:
Easy - I would see a highly improbable arrangement of highly improbable "components" coexisting for a unified purpose (even if that purpose is unknown).
If you do not know the purpose of the arrangement, how do you
know there is one?
How do you know that this is the only arrangement of components
that could act in a similar fashion to this object ... and
thus assess the 'improbability' of the arrangement?
Without prior knowledge of the 'components' and their frequency
across the universe, how can you assign an 'improbability'
to the components?
quote:
A better example than your radio is a single cell : there are hundreds of billions of atoms in a specific arrangement that makes this arrangement a living entity. Change the arrangement in any significant way and the cell dies.
Define significant ... don't want to sound too 'it's all how you
define stuff' BUT 'significant is subjective in the extreme.
There's plenty you can do to cells without killing them ... you
may change their function, but not necessarily kill the cell.
quote:
How did this arrangement come to be? Answer : it's a copy of its "parent".
How did the first arrangement come to be? Answer : "matter arranged itself over millions of years".
Uhhh... you may choose to believe that, we don't!
How big is the universe?
We can only see a fraction of it, and thet 'visibility' is increasing
at 1 light year per year.
If the universe is extremely vast, then the probability of
these arrangements starts to dwindle -- why? There are only
a finite number of quantum states ... someone has estimated that
an EXACT duplicate of our section of the universe MUST exist
within a finite distance (though huge) of us. (There were articles
recently in Scientific American and New Scientist on this).
Arguments based upon supposed liklihood are arguments from incredulity, and based upon insufficient knowledge of the
universe to be relied upon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Joralex, posted 10-22-2003 2:20 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 213 (62303)
10-23-2003 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Joralex
10-22-2003 2:20 PM


Natural Formations?
quote:
you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern and you'd be logically & scientifically correct in your conclusion since there are no naturally-occurring phenomena that generate such patterns
You would not be correct in assuming intelligent interference.
If you came across stone circles like these :
would you automatically assume that the hand of man (or tentacle or alien) was involved?
If you saw regular hexagonal stones like ones show at the bottom of this page:
http://www.raphaelk.co.uk/...0Ireland/Northern%20Ireland.htm
would you infer divine influence or natural formation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Joralex, posted 10-22-2003 2:20 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Joralex, posted 10-24-2003 3:45 PM Weyland has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 213 (62310)
10-23-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Psyiko
10-08-2003 8:09 PM


quote:
What I don't understand is how people can actually believe there is a god. There is no suggestion of an existence of a god, and many suggestions that negate the existence of god. Although, most of the people here are probably atheists trying to convey their views, I’m hoping a few devout Christians or whatnot will try and explain how a god is logically possible, or probable. too many things contradict the supposed unconditional love of god or free will given to all humans. example: if you have unconditional love for a person, and is all forgiving, how can you send someone you love to hell to suffer eternally?
Who said you are going to go to hell if you break any of the commandments? and who said it was eternal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Psyiko, posted 10-08-2003 8:09 PM Psyiko has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 213 (62313)
10-23-2003 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Psyiko
10-09-2003 11:50 PM


if they are condeming you they are wrong, they are doing exactly what only god can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Psyiko, posted 10-09-2003 11:50 PM Psyiko has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 213 (62317)
10-23-2003 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by IrishRockhound
10-14-2003 11:15 AM


Wow. I am confused with your ways they are interesting. My question is why make up a god if there is already one? oh wait thats because you are probably out there trying to be your self and dont want to follow his rules. Laugh is that the only reason you don't believe in him, because you dont agree with him, wow. So if you dont agree with me that means I dont exists also don't it. Laugh thats really good philosphy I wish I could believe that.
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-14-2003 11:15 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Peter, posted 10-23-2003 11:17 AM Quiz has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 213 (62318)
10-23-2003 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by IrishRockhound
10-14-2003 5:26 PM


I cant help but make that loud noise when you slide your finger up and down on your lips, BPHPHPHPHPHP!
-Quiz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-14-2003 5:26 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by zephyr, posted 10-23-2003 11:40 AM Quiz has not replied
 Message 129 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-23-2003 1:52 PM Quiz has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 127 of 213 (62351)
10-23-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Quiz
10-23-2003 8:11 AM


Can't speak for IrishRockHound (natch) but not agreeing with
the message of the bible and not beleiving in god are two
different things.
Personally I feel that the teachings of Jesus in the new testament
are admirable, it's a pity so few people follow those ideas.
I don't believe in Jesus's divinity, and I have strong doubts
over his existence in reality.
The christian god doesn't interact ... he promised not to, and
it would mess with his whole 'free-will' experiment ... so
his existence cannot prevent behaviour.
I have a suspicion that religions came about as a means of
crowd control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Quiz, posted 10-23-2003 8:11 AM Quiz has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 128 of 213 (62354)
10-23-2003 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Quiz
10-23-2003 8:16 AM


quote:
BPHPHPHPHPHP!
Are you trying to give your faith a bad name? Apparently it has failed to instill any semblance of kindness or understanding in you, which is not a great thing to advertise.
One more reason I believe good Christians were just good people to begin with. Faith and virtue in general have completely lost any logical connection in my eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Quiz, posted 10-23-2003 8:16 AM Quiz has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 129 of 213 (62385)
10-23-2003 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Quiz
10-23-2003 8:16 AM


Eh?
Funny noises are indeed amusing, but I fail to see what it has to do with the existance of a divine being. Care to explain?
The Rock Hound
------------------
"They say there's a heaven for those who wait,
Some say it's better but I say it ain't,
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints,
The sinners have much more fun."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Quiz, posted 10-23-2003 8:16 AM Quiz has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 213 (62400)
10-23-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Amlodhi
10-22-2003 3:16 PM


Again, this is my question. You give several examples of recognizable patterns. However, we only attribute "intelligent design" to those patterns that exhibit a remarkable similarity to patterns we know to be of human design.
The common denominator is not necessarily the correlation to human design. The feature that indicates 'design' is a high improbability with what Dembski terms 'specificity'.
How then do we differentiate between these "intelligently designed" patterns and their "natural" surroundings.
Wrong contrast. Both of these things that you wish to differentiate exhibit a highly improbable arrangement AND a manifest purpose.
IOW, first you say that we can recognize human-like design patterns because they contrast completely with patterns found in nature.
I don't think that I said this (I certainly didn't mean it this way) but let's go on...
Then you turn around and say that nature must be intelligently designed because its patterns are so similar to human-like design.
No. Nature is intelligently designed because it possesses an attribute that is found only in intelligently designed objects - complex specified information (CSI)!
The contention is that we can distinguish intelligent human design from natural processes.
In many ways this isn't possible. Nature exhibits much of what a super-intelligent (human) being would have done had that being been the creator of that nature. For example, the order, the co-dependence (symbiotic relationships), the fine-tuning of 'natural' constants, the common features amongst the immense variety of living organisms, and others.
What more then can be said of natural processes; other than that they do not exhibit the patterns of intelligent human design?
We're not smart enough to have 'designed' nature but an entity such as God would have no problem. Also, note how in hindsight we are able to make sense of God's creation - it's called 'science'.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Amlodhi, posted 10-22-2003 3:16 PM Amlodhi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by kjsimons, posted 10-23-2003 4:46 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 133 by nator, posted 10-24-2003 8:31 AM Joralex has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 131 of 213 (62406)
10-23-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Joralex
10-23-2003 3:59 PM


complex specified information (CSI)!
WTF is this?!!! Admit this is just a made up measurement so you can sound intelligent. "All sound and fury signifying nothing"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Joralex, posted 10-23-2003 3:59 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 10-23-2003 5:36 PM kjsimons has not replied
 Message 146 by Joralex, posted 10-24-2003 7:34 PM kjsimons has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 132 of 213 (62407)
10-23-2003 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by kjsimons
10-23-2003 4:46 PM


CSI is a term used in the ID community. Joralex can be forgiven for thinking that those folks do know what they are talking about. However, I have yet to see it defined in a way that can be used. We'll have to see if a definition appears here now.
Do NOT hold your breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kjsimons, posted 10-23-2003 4:46 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Joralex, posted 10-24-2003 8:34 PM NosyNed has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 133 of 213 (62549)
10-24-2003 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Joralex
10-23-2003 3:59 PM


Joralex, maybe you missed my post?
I'll restate my question for you here.
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we
1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and/or
2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand?
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Joralex, posted 10-23-2003 3:59 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Joralex, posted 10-24-2003 9:06 PM nator has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 213 (62596)
10-24-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Zhimbo
10-23-2003 4:36 AM


Re: Symbiosis, The Eye
In the recent past, you gave the eye and vision as such an example, in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye. You dropped all discussion of the example when pressed.
Not "when pressed" but rather when I saw that it was going nowhere. How does one convince a person that will stop at nothing to advance materialistic Naturalism? I believe that this isn't possible.
Do you concede that the eye does not constitute evidence of design?
I believe that you know the answer to that question.
If you concede, that's fine with me. If you don't concede, that thread is still waiting. I've posted several reminders of some of the hanging questions.
With what purpose?
If you feel that symbiotic relations are proof of design, please open a thread on the topic, since a detailed discusssion of symbiosis would be off topic in this forum.
No empirical evidence would be "proof" of design (or of natural evolution). The matter is not about "proof", it is about rational justification and inferencing the best explanation. I maintain that materialistic naturalism is not the best rational explanation but rather that it is the preferred explanation. Assuming my hypothesis, it is an easy matter to see why/how the evidence is then interpreted according to materialistc requirements.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Zhimbo, posted 10-23-2003 4:36 AM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-24-2003 2:59 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 137 by Zhimbo, posted 10-24-2003 3:30 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 213 (62602)
10-24-2003 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Joralex
10-24-2003 2:21 PM


Re: Symbiosis, The Eye
Joralex, should we assume in future threads that if someone is arguing for naturalism, you're simply not going to respond to them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Joralex, posted 10-24-2003 2:21 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024