Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 5 of 325 (148268)
10-08-2004 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 8:52 AM


I find it odd that you're perfectly happy to posit an awesomely powerful being capable of designing a universe without any cause or explanation but reject the notion of an entirely simpler natural cause for the universe without cause or explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 8:52 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 9 of 325 (148282)
10-08-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 8:41 AM


If you enclose the section you are quoting in [ qs ] and [ /qs ] tags (without the spaces before and after the qs) you will get nice quote boxes like these:
Once again, that's the whole point of Collins' hypothesis.......even if the universe and life assembled itself through naturalistic means (a big if), what are the odds that every force of nature would just happen to act in a way that either failed to hinder of caused the creation of man?
As has been pointed out we don't have the information to make any judgement on what those odds are. In any case your answer fails to answer my point: isn't, by definition, a being capable of creating and fine tuning the universe more complicated and requiring of more precise conditions than the universe itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:41 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:24 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 15 of 325 (148338)
10-08-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 11:24 AM


Oh, come on, just like at the geological f-18s analogy.......that analogy was probably GENEROUS to materialists, and I know darn well that I don't need a mathematician to tell me that the odds of the forces of geology just by coincidence pre-destining the production of f-18s (a machine much less compex than man) aren't very good.
But geology doesn't produce f-18s, it produces mountains through processes we understand pretty well.
And, hang on a second, "pre-destining" - nothing has predestined anything, that's the whole drift of naturalism. Things just happen.
Yes. But the difference is that not only does a theoretical metaphysical force, like God, not require an explaination, but the attempt at explaining a metaphysical being or process through physical means would be absurd.
However, physical beings like us DO require a physical explaination.........and even if all of the forces of nature conspire together to materialistically pre-destin the existance of man, could we really convince ourselves that these natural phenomonon just HAPPEN BY CHANCE to work together to make us?
Nope. Firstly, as I said above: no pre-destination. Secondly, you're wrong - we don't require any more or less explanation that a god does. Whatever reason you can put forward as to why your designed doesn't require an explanation I can put forward as to why the universe doesn't require one - and the universe will always be the simpler explanation.
Our knowledge of the laws of Physics are derived from a tiny sample under a small subset of possible circumstances; we know nothing yet about what goes on at the big bang yet alone before it. What Physics has taught us, however, is that intuition and common sense are very poor guides indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:24 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 90 of 325 (149061)
10-11-2004 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 11:50 AM


Please use those quote boxes I showed you how to use, Jason, it'd make your replies easier to read.
That's why it's called an analogy. On the other hand, the multiverse (if it even exists) DOES produce us, machines far complex than any f-18........
The universe does, yes, geology does not - and the universe does it through processes we're beginning to understand. None of which are any where near as complicated as the 'designer' use wish to posit to explain them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:50 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 11:37 PM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 137 of 325 (149399)
10-12-2004 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 11:37 PM


I find it to be an indirect admission of the effectiveness of my geological f-18s analogy that the only way any of you can refute it is by pretending to not know what an analogy is.........
A f-18 formed by geology would appear to be a miracle. However, we don't find anything like that. We find biological organisms of greater complexity than a f-18 formed by the process of natural selection and mutation - and there is no miracle in that. The organisms produced by evolution scream it from their every feature from the structure of their smallest cells to the nature of their behaviour.
I find your analogy stupid because it compares completely different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 11:37 PM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by JasonChin, posted 10-16-2004 6:55 AM Dr Jack 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