Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   My thoughts on a Designer (now open for comments)
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 15 (260993)
11-18-2005 2:56 PM


I think there is a designer. I have had many thoughts on this lately. I think it's reasonable to deduce a designer from looking at the universe, and would like to expound on this in the knowledge that I am willing to have my small summary refuted.
Premisses;
There are instances in which to get the right conditions for events/life/tangeable diverse matter, "thought" seems to be a requirement.
In this universe, there atleast seems to be such instances.
Conclusion; This universe required "thought".
I shall try and back up both premisses as best I can. First I will say that the first mover has to be motivated and then the problem is solved. (Sidelined).
Thus to demand God having a "beginning", is to demand circles have "corners". The problem is solved via motivation, and I've been dieing to spit this out. It strikes me that the first cause, if self-sufficient, can "cause" or move to instigate, via motivation and so a mind solves the problem.
Infact, a "mind" solves many problems, without people being so impolites as to say I am filling gaps with God.
Infact, I shall not mention him for the rest of this post, and now I shall expound upon my premisses, by supporting the first premise:
It seems that thought is a requirement, because that is self-evident in any worthy system.
It would be premature to say that random chance alone, can create situations of order, if we see that there are particular requirements needed, in order to get a viable system. And also, the systems that are in place, suggest foreknowledge of requirements for that system. Hence my second premise; and here is an example;
We see that if there was no time, then no events would occur, and if there were no friction, nothing would hold, and if there were no light and energy, there would be no life. Which begs the question; Is there and event and something that should hold together, and something that should need energy, precedingly? If these specific conditions are the case, then why are they precedingly the case when they ae EXACTLY what shall be required later on? Chance would supposedly allow these conditions, but the specifics are remarkable, and demand thought.
For example; If you have the sun as a light for the day, and you need a light for the night, you can't have a "moon" satellite as a heat/energy source, as it would cook the inhabitants of the planet. Thus you make the moon to reflect the sun's light, and guess what? It just so happens that heat radiation requires a vacuum, and space just happens to be that vaccum.
Do not these things require thought?
I have a specific question;
What is more likely; that chance provides these things, or thought? Which is the more likely scenario?
(Although my argument is a proper one; it is not science, it is philosophy and can be placed in F+B I suppose)
(edit by AdminNWR: modify thread title comment to open discussion)
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-18-2005 02:38 PM
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-26-2005 09:21 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 11-18-2005 4:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (260995)
11-18-2005 2:57 PM


This is a discussion limited to the two participants
Please honor their request.
Good luck to each of you.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 3 of 15 (261036)
    11-18-2005 4:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
    11-18-2005 2:56 PM


    On Fine Tuning
    Premisses;
    There are instances in which to get the right conditions for events/life/tangeable diverse matter, "thought" seems to be a requirement.
    In this universe, there atleast seems to be such instances.
    Conclusion; This universe required "thought".
    You are making what is commonly referred to as the Fine Tuning argument. The claim is that the universe is fine tuned for our existence, and that this is implausible unless there was an intelligent designer.
    I'll mention some books that make this argument.
  • Michael Denton (1998): Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose In The Universe
  • Dean Overman (1997): A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization
  • Richard Swinburne: Is There a God
  • Barrow and Tipler: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
    OK, I cheated. I got that list of books from http://www.wasdarwinwrong.com
    Another admission. I haven't actually read any of those books.
    The counter argument is that you have it backwards. It isn't that the universe is fine tuned for us. Rather, we are fine tuned for the universe, and evolution did that fine tuning.
    Thus to demand God having a "beginning", is to demand circles have "corners". The problem is solved via motivation, and I've been dieing to spit this out. It strikes me that the first cause, if self-sufficient, can "cause" or move to instigate, via motivation and so a mind solves the problem.
    The question of "first cause" often comes up in these arguments. But I am not convinced that there need be a first cause. Particle physics seems to give convincing evidence of uncaused events.
    The other problem with "first cause" arguments, is that they depend on our intuition about "cause". However, our intuition derives from our experience in this universe. There is no reason to suppose that our intuition is appropriate to whatever existed prior to the appearance of this universe. For that matter, our intuitive understanding of time, and of "prior" also come from this universe, and it might be completely wrong to assume it meaningful to talk of a time prior to this universe.
    It seems that thought is a requirement, because that is self-evident in any worthy system.
    Have you thought about what constitutes thought?
    It would be premature to say that random chance alone, can create situations of order, if we see that there are particular requirements needed, in order to get a viable system. And also, the systems that are in place, suggest foreknowledge of requirements for that system. Hence my second premise;
    Is there order?
    It sometimes seems to me that the world is a disorderly place. It seems particularly disorderly when I look at the weeds in my garden. But could it be that biological systems bring about some degree of order? I think, if every living thing were to die, then the world would be a lot more disorderly than it currently is. So maybe order comes not from random chance alone, but from the natural selection of orderliness within what is produced by random chance.
    and here is an example;
    We see that if there was no time, then no events would occur, and if there were no friction, nothing would hold, and if there were no light and energy, there would be no life. Which begs the question; Is there and event and something that should hold together, and something that should need energy, precedingly? If these specific conditions are the case, then why are they precedingly the case when they ae EXACTLY what shall be required later on? Chance would supposedly allow these conditions, but the specifics are remarkable, and demand thought.
    Time, events, friction, energy; these are all concepts that we have invented to best describe our world. Is it possible that there could be different worlds where these concepts don't fit, but where there are other useful concepts that would be available to creatures of that universe?
    For example; If you have the sun as a light for the day, and you need a light for the night, you can't have a "moon" satellite as a heat/energy source, as it would cook the inhabitants of the planet. Thus you make the moon to reflect the sun's light, and guess what? It just so happens that heat radiation requires a vacuum, and space just happens to be that vaccum.
    It isn't clear to me that the inhabitants would be cooked. Maybe organisms would evolve that could stand the extra heat.
    Final comment (final for this round): Many scientists consider the fine tuning argument to be attractive, and many are deists because of that. Physicists, astronomers, chemists seem to be particularly attracted by it. It is my impression that it is less attractive to biologists, perhaps because they are more inclined toward evolutionary explanations.
    Your turn, mike.
    By the way, I may pace this and reply only once or twice per day. Hope that's alright with you. A slower pace allows more time for thought.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 2:56 PM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 8:54 PM nwr has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 4 of 15 (261132)
    11-18-2005 8:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
    11-18-2005 4:37 PM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    Hi NWR. Thanks for the reply; Please forgive me if I don't respond to any of your posts for possibly a day or two at pending my own internet access.
    The counter argument is that you have it backwards. It isn't that the universe is fine tuned for us. Rather, we are fine tuned for the universe, and evolution did that fine tuning.
    Am I assuming this is the position you take aswell? You don't have to answer that, as I know you want your belief private.
    What I would say is that this position is correct(the latter half). I agree that evolutionary science shows that adaptation in organisms, to it's surroundings. I can't agree it isn't fine-tuned. I think it is made for events, and the arrangement of matter.
    However, logically I must posit that although life could exist in another form, in, for example (to counter my claim), a hot environment, with say, a hot moon , then this still doesn't negate the fact that the universe itself, overall, makes this possible.
    If you have Joe the alien living in a chaotic solar system, living in heated conditions etc. then Joe aswell as our species here on earth, still require the basics. Friction, time, water etc..
    So although we adapt, our surroundings must first enable life to exist, in order that we can exist, in order to adapt.
    This is the bulk of my argument. That infact, the universe has all the factors required, and is set up for such events, and I would still suggest this is the case, with evolution. I don't think evolution excludes what I am saying. I think the truth is that the universe must have the conditions required, and then life adapts.
    Obviously there is no instance in which a species could adapt to there being no time.
    I personally believe that adaptation is just a part of the design, as the universe is somewhat changeable. But time and friction and the fundamentals from the Big Bang, don't change.
    Time, events, friction, energy; these are all concepts that we have invented to best describe our world. Is it possible that there could be different worlds where these concepts don't fit, but where there are other useful concepts that would be available to creatures of that universe?
    I agree that these hypothetical places could exist. Although I think my argument only deals with the facts; it only deals with this universe.
    I think, across the board, there is a fine-tuning.
    People usually think we as theists, only refer to the fine-tuned conditions around us. But infact the basic fundamental requirements of correct gravity, friction, time, all indicate a set up for diverse matter, and events regardless of our own existence.
    Basically I agree with the rest of your post. Which might not make for an interesting debate. So I'll add some spice;
    Many have posited that the water in the hole is infact a puddle, and the hole isn't dug for the water. But is that a true analogy if we are honest? If we truly look at all the universal factors, then is it not more adequately desribed as a pond, dug for the water?
    Truly take your time in answering, there's no rush. I for one thought for an hour or so about us being evolved for the conditions presented to us.
    P.S. If there is anything I missed you wanted me to adress, please mention it and I'll adress it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by nwr, posted 11-18-2005 4:37 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by nwr, posted 11-19-2005 2:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 5 of 15 (261285)
    11-19-2005 2:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
    11-18-2005 8:54 PM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    Am I assuming this is the position you take aswell? You don't have to answer that, as I know you want your belief private.
    I can comment on my current view as to the universe, while still keeping my religious views private.
    I see the universe as possibly coarse-tuned, but not fine-tuned. That is, there could be many possible universes, and some of those might not support anything comparable to what we call life. Our universe is coarse-tuned, in the sense that it at least supports life. Thereafter, the fine tuning is of life fine tuning itself to fit our universe, through evolutionary processes.
    We don't know, and we cannot know, whether this is the only universe. Maybe there are lots of universes, some supporting life and some not. In that case, we could not even say that our universe is coarse-tuned, since it might just appear that way due to us seeing things only from the vantage point of this universe.
    If you have Joe the alien living in a chaotic solar system, living in heated conditions etc. then Joe aswell as our species here on earth, still require the basics. Friction, time, water etc..
    Evolution is opportunistic. Through the trial and error of random mutations it tests various ways of eking out an existence. And when it happens upon an opportunity, natural selection gives it the means to exploit that opportunity. Our early ancestors discovered ways to exploit friction, water, etc. We require those, because evolutionary processes designed us to exploit them and to depend on them. In a universe without friction or water, evolutionary processes might have found other exploitable attributes of their universe. Perhaps neither friction nor water is a necessity.
    I avoided (or evaded) commenting on time, because I find it very difficult to imagine what a universe without time could be like.
    So although we adapt, our surroundings must first enable life to exist, in order that we can exist, in order to adapt.
    That's where my earlier comment about coarse-tuning applies. But the surroundings need not enable life as we know it. It suffices that they enable some sort of processes, analogous to our life, that can evolve and diversify in their ways of exploiting their universe.
    Obviously there is no instance in which a species could adapt to there being no time
    It is not obvious to me. In fact nothing is obvious about a universe without time, since I have such difficulty conceiving such a universe. But maybe you are really saying the same thing - that it is difficult or nigh impossible to conceive of such a universe.
    I think, across the board, there is a fine-tuning.
    For reasons I have already given, I think that there is an appearance of fine-tuning but not the reality of fine tuning.
    Let me add that I think your position is an entirely respectable one, even if I disagree.
    There is much that we do not know, and cannot know. It starts with the question "why is there anything at all, and not nothing?" We are creatures of our universe. We can only see what it looks like from inside. We philosophize about what the universe might look like from outside that universe. But we have no way of testing our thoughts. We cannot even be sure if there is an outside from which there could be a viewpoint. So some of the great metaphysical question may never be answerable. Some people will select answers that suit them, and that can guide their lives. Others will decide that such questions do not need to be asked and will conduct their lives without depending on assumed answers.
    I am reminded that Carl Sagan, while considering himself an atheist, still expressed immense awe at the nature of the universe. I think that most of us, whether theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, can share that feeling of awe.
    ... might not make for an interesting debate.
    If we run out of steam in our debate, we can always try inviting others to comment. I hope that doesn't break any forum rules. The remarks posted in No, not a Great Debate! suggest that there is interest. (Note to others - please don't comment unless and until invited).
    Many have posited that the water in the hole is infact a puddle, and the hole isn't dug for the water. But is that a true analogy if we are honest? If we truly look at all the universal factors, then is it not more adequately desribed as a pond, dug for the water?
    It is all a matter of perspective. The world looks different from inside the fishbowl than from outside.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 11-18-2005 8:54 PM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 11-20-2005 8:08 AM nwr has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 6 of 15 (261490)
    11-20-2005 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
    11-19-2005 2:03 PM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    see the universe as possibly coarse-tuned, but not fine-tuned. That is, there could be many possible universes, and some of those might not support anything comparable to what we call life
    Doesn't this assume the trait of chance, which is of this universe?
    We don't know, and we cannot know, whether this is the only universe. Maybe there are lots of universes, some supporting life and some not.
    The problem is that we could make thousands of hypothetical statements such as this and they'd all be possible. If there are lots of universe, there would have to be lots of chance, a trait of this universe, which I must assume you assume is "out there" aswell. Fair enough though; I know it's possible, I just think it's convenient for the random-reality scenario.
    Our early ancestors discovered ways to exploit friction, water, etc. We require those, because evolutionary processes designed us to exploit them and to depend on them. In a universe without friction or water, evolutionary processes might have found other exploitable attributes of their universe. Perhaps neither friction nor water is a necessity
    But even scientists agree that life requires such things. This is why we look at other solar systems, and can say that there isn't life there. I think time = events, thus life.
    There is much that we do not know, and cannot know. It starts with the question "why is there anything at all, and not nothing?"
    Yes. This plagues me sometimes. Why would there be anything anyway? Especially if it is all random. It might aswell simply "not be", and then from there, you add up things such as "time", and why such fundamentals are in place. Even if you don't include life, time is still allowing for events to transpire. So it doesn't take life evolving to time, for us to see that time allows this.
    I consider my moon-example, in specific, refuted, as life adapts to it's surroundings. A logical example is that an alien who is close to his sun, might say, "this sun is made perfect", but if we visited his planet, we would cook.
    However, could the alien still say, "this planet/sun is made perfect for us, and all our lifeforms"?
    You see, generally, there is still a range. For example; there will be a limit to how much heat and cold any life can take. So within the range that would allow life, becomes the "thought" I originally attributed to specific solar system instances. It's the range that allows the life, IMHO.
    I think we might be starting to agree to disagree. I'll let you decide if we should close this soon or whatever.
    Let me add that I think your position is an entirely respectable one, even if I disagree
    Thanks. So is yours. You have posited many scenarios and possibilities, so you are not biased.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by nwr, posted 11-19-2005 2:03 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by nwr, posted 11-20-2005 6:34 PM mike the wiz has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 7 of 15 (261618)
    11-20-2005 6:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
    11-20-2005 8:08 AM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    see the universe as possibly coarse-tuned, but not fine-tuned. That is, there could be many possible universes, and some of those might not support anything comparable to what we call life
    Doesn't this assume the trait of chance, which is of this universe?
    It's a good question. However, some people question whether chance even existist within this universe. Such people are known as determinists, and I suspect that you have yourself had some discussions over the issues of determinism and free will. We had a recent discussion here in How determined are you?. If a good library is available, you might want to take a look at the book "How free are you?" by Ted Honderich, who argues for determinism (and against free will).
    Most of what we know about chance comes from the mathematics of probability. Even if there is no actual chance in this universe, we can still apply the mathematics where it seems to fit well enough for useful modelling. I think it is reasonable to say that mathematics is not really tied to this universe, but would be just as useful in other universes. That's because mathematics is not empirical.
    The answer to your question is no. The idea that there could be multiple universes does not depend on chance. We could live in a hyperverse (or is that a metaverse) containing many universes. Yet there might not be any actual chance anywhere in that metaverse. Still, the mathematics of probability theory would be useful for theoretical analysis of aspects of this metaverse.
    We don't know, and we cannot know, whether this is the only universe. Maybe there are lots of universes, some supporting life and some not.
    The problem is that we could make thousands of hypothetical statements such as this and they'd all be possible. If there are lots of universe, there would have to be lots of chance, a trait of this universe, which I must assume you assume is "out there" aswell. Fair enough though; I know it's possible, I just think it's convenient for the random-reality scenario.
    But there need not be any chance. There could be many possible universes, and by chance we have this one. But there could also be many actual universes, all fully in operation. Then it isn't a matter of chance that this particular one exists, because they all exist.
    But even scientists agree that life requires such things.
    The forms of life that we know require water, and perhaps friction. But we cannot know that for the life-like processes that might exist in different universes. Those would have evolved to make use of whatever exists in their universe, and that might be different from the water, friction, etc., that we find here.
    This is why we look at other solar systems, and can say that there isn't life there.
    Our ability to look at other solar systems is very limited. In most cases, we can only detect large planets (maybe similar to Jupiter). Moreover, when we say that life cannot exist, we are only talking about the kind of carbon-based life that is familiar to us. People have speculated about silicon based life, so maybe some sort of life-like processes are possible, even in this universe, in places where carbon based life cannot survive.
    I think time = events, thus life.
    That's a point for you. I have already granted that I am unable to conceive of a universe without something similar to time.
    This plagues me sometimes. Why would there be anything anyway?
    Yes, I think we both agree that this is a puzzle, perhaps an unsolvable one. Of course, even if you hypothesize a deity, that puzzle still remains unresolved. For why should there be a deity, rather than nothing at all?
    You see, generally, there is still a range. For example; there will be a limit to how much heat and cold any life can take. So within the range that would allow life, becomes the "thought" I originally attributed to specific solar system instances. It's the range that allows the life, IMHO.
    I think we might be starting to agree to disagree.
    It seems to me that we are agreeing more than we disagree. You seem to have accepted my idea of a coarse-tuned rather than a fine tuned universe.
    The main disagreement that remains, I think, is that you believe even a coarse-tuned universe requires a deity. I don't see any basis for this requirement. For it seems to me that a deity is infinitely more difficult to explain than a universe. So by introducing a deity to explain the universe, it seems to me that you have gone backwards and introduced more mystery than there was before assuming a deity.
    Why not just say that there are some metaphysical questions that can never be settled?
    There could, of course, be personal reasons for assuming a deity. But those are outside the scope of this discussion. What I am arguing, is that you have failed to convince me that the nature of the universe necessitates the existence of a deity.
    I'll let you decide if we should close this soon or whatever.
    This is your topic, so it is up to you to decide. I am happy to continue one-on-one for as long as you find that interesting. But I will also be interested in what others want to say, should you decide to open up the discussion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 11-20-2005 8:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 11-21-2005 9:30 AM nwr has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 8 of 15 (261849)
    11-21-2005 9:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
    11-20-2005 6:34 PM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    But there need not be any chance. There could be many possible universes, and by chance we have this one. But there could also be many actual universes, all fully in operation. Then it isn't a matter of chance that this particular one exists, because they all exist.
    While this is possible, again, I think speculation is a way of not fully answering the conditions of this universe.
    When the theistic argument describes the conditions of this universe, this is met with arguments about conditions of other universes. It's a bit like catching a killer, and saying, "we have stab wounds in this case, but in other cases there might be gun shot wounds". It removes focus from the actual case in question.
    I think this universe just popping up through chance, means that you have to go along with all of them coming about none-theistically = chancefully.
    The fact is that reality = this universe/everything. Possibilities of other universes are, even if they are a fair speculation, useless, IMHO. As there is no evidence of other universes, so we can't measure this one by them, as that assumes they exist in the first place.
    The forms of life that we know require water, and perhaps friction. But we cannot know that for the life-like processes that might exist in different universes. Those would have evolved to make use of whatever exists in their universe, and that might be different from the water, friction, etc., that we find here.
    In another universe, superman could protect the inhabitants of a similar "earth" like place.
    What does that enable us to say about this universe? The facts are that in this universe, life requires this "range". Range of heat-cold. Range of energy. There must be energy for life to exist. So we can conclude that life requires this range as far as we know.
    when we say that life cannot exist, we are only talking about the kind of carbon-based life that is familiar to us
    Is there any other kind?
    You seem to have accepted my idea of a coarse-tuned rather than a fine tuned universe.
    Depends what you mean by coarse. Low-grade, or unrefined? I still think the universe is very much a place that shows incredible thought.
    The main disagreement that remains, I think, is that you believe even a coarse-tuned universe requires a deity. I don't see any basis for this requirement. For it seems to me that a deity is infinitely more difficult to explain than a universe. So by introducing a deity to explain the universe, it seems to me that you have gone backwards and introduced more mystery than there was before assuming a deity.
    Don't forget that my actual syllogism doesn't mention a deity. It only mentions how "thought" is an impeccable explanation, IMHO.
    That's the problem with concentrating on the main I.D. arguments. They usually are "Goddidit" ones.
    Mine is more "a mind explains this incredibly neatly".
    If it was the Goddidit scenario, then I'd have not posed as to why thought creates this "possible range" of life.
    So..I'm infact cannot infer a deity. I can only infer a mind, and believe that mind to be a deity.
    Why not just say that there are some metaphysical questions that can never be settled?
    My mind is complex. I do. Infact, all your answers are the correct in that you pose that there is only questions about such things. So infact I can't prove anything at all. And I agree with most of what you are saying, as you haven't dismissed anything.
    I would be content if you mentioned one possibility, the only possibility you seem to not mention or fight against; that a mind would be a good explanation for these conditions we see.
    Do you think that is a good possibility? Or would you say that none-theistic chance explains absolutely everything in a much better way?
    BTW. I am enjoying this discussion and these are just my thoughts. I am aware that scientifically, and even logically, I cannot prove this the case. But nobody actually seems to test or listen to a genuine boring argument these days. Only the controversial ones that come against science. Does anyone test these scenarios in reality apart from Brad? Do you know anyone who actually seeks, like Brad, to say;
    If a mind created this place, then we would expect to see this that and the other?
    this, scientifically, would be a valid way to proceed with a theory.
    Maybe it's because people cannot believe there isn't a religious motive involved, or that such things would lead to religious justification. But infact, such arguments would have to be abused, to be religiously justified. As is the case with my one. I entirely admitt that the "God" part must be believed according to my syllogism.
    (I could be back and thereby respond to your future-post in a few days...forgive my lack of attendence if this is the case)
    Don't be claiming winner by default, naughty baba.
    This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-21-2005 09:31 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by nwr, posted 11-20-2005 6:34 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM mike the wiz has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 9 of 15 (262230)
    11-22-2005 12:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
    11-21-2005 9:30 AM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    The fact is that reality = this universe/everything. Possibilities of other universes are, even if they are a fair speculation, useless, IMHO. As there is no evidence of other universes, so we can't measure this one by them, as that assumes they exist in the first place.
    I tend to agree with this, in a practical sense. But I was playing devil's advocate to give you the other possibilities. Other universes may exist, but since we cannot access them they are not relevant to us.
    The thing is that if I win the lottery, that truly seems remarkable given how highly improbable it is. Yet there is always a winner, so it isn't actually remarkable at all.
    It's like that with our universe. Among all of the possible universes, we happened to land in one that supports our kind of life. So we won the universe lottery. Well, some sort of universe had to win, so it isn't all that remarkable that there was a winner to the universe lottery. And, given that we happen to find ourselves in this universe, it isn't at all surprising that this universe is one in which we are capable of living. That's the weak anthropic principle.
    What does that enable us to say about this universe? The facts are that in this universe, life requires this "range". Range of heat-cold. Range of energy. There must be energy for life to exist. So we can conclude that life requires this range as far as we know.
    That's just our good luck, in winning the universe lottery.
    What does that enable us to say about this universe? The facts are that in this universe, life requires this "range". Range of heat-cold. Range of energy. There must be energy for life to exist. So we can conclude that life requires this range as far as we know.
    We are continually surprised by how wide this range is. When at Yellowstone National Park, I could see life in the hot springs - water too hot to put your hand in. And then there are those tube worms that live at hot vents at the bottom of the ocean. Life can adapt to amazingly hot places and amazingly cold places. The range that will support life is wide.
    If there is a tiny hole and you drop a pin, then it is truly amazing if the pin drops into the hole. If there is a huge gaping hole and you drop a pin, then it isn't surprising at all. The adaptability of life, and the wide range of conditions where life can be found, suggest that we are in the gaping hole scenario.
    when we say that life cannot exist, we are only talking about the kind of carbon-based life that is familiar to us
    Is there any other kind?
    We don't know of any others. We don't know that there are not others. We do know that silicon can combine in ways somewhat similar to carbon, so conceivably you could have a silicon version of something similar to DNA.
    I still think the universe is very much a place that shows incredible thought.
    Surely it does. But it is our thought. Our scientific laws look designed. They were designed by people like Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Gauss, Darwin. There is no doubt that thought was involved.
    Don't forget that my actual syllogism doesn't mention a deity. It only mentions how "thought" is an impeccable explanation, IMHO.
    Good point. Then change my "deity" to "thinker".
    There interesting point is that the only thinkers we know of are biological creatures on this planet. It's not clear that there are any others.
    I would be content if you mentioned one possibility, the only possibility you seem to not mention or fight against; that a mind would be a good explanation for these conditions we see.
    Do you think that is a good possibility? Or would you say that none-theistic chance explains absolutely everything in a much better way?
    Yes, I can agree with that. But I don't think you have to look beyond this earth to find the minds.
    I have already credited human minds with our scientific laws, by suggesting that they are designed rather than discovered. Incidently I can go further into that if you wish.
    I even see biological evolution as having some of the characteristics of a mind. For it is a learning system. It learns by trial and error, where the trials are done with recombinant DNA, and the determination of error is done by natural selection. So, in a way, I think of evolutionary processes as a kind of intelligent designer.
    Do you know anyone who actually seeks, like Brad, to say;
    If a mind created this place, then we would expect to see this that and the other?
    I can't say that do know of anyone. That isn't going to be easy to do. Intelligent minds, by their nature, are difficult to predict.
    I guess you could say that about scientists looking at bird flu. Some of them are saying that evolutionary processes, which I have just suggested have some of the characteristics of intelligence, are likely to create a modified bird flu that can readily infect humans.
    Maybe it's because people cannot believe there isn't a religious motive involved, ...
    I certainly take you at your word when you say there is no religious motive. I think you are just puzzled by some of the mysteries of the universe. I think we all are. I'm just a bit less puzzled than you.
    Don't be claiming winner by default, naughty baba.
    No need to worry. I won't be claiming victory. I really expect this debate to end in a tie.
    Your turn, when you are ready. No rush.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 11-21-2005 9:30 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-26-2005 10:11 AM nwr has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 10 of 15 (263231)
    11-26-2005 10:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
    11-22-2005 12:01 AM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    Hi NWR. Sorry about my time away, I am very busy.
    Reading your post I couldn't think of any refutations, and I suppose we're somewhat in agreement. I'll have to ask that you possibly open this up, as I think I won't be able to play any time soon.
    (Forgive me, but originally I didn't think I would be having a Great Debate. You can win by default I suppose, as I haven't came up with a refutation. I'll leave it to smarter guys.)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 10:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 11 of 15 (263235)
    11-26-2005 10:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
    11-26-2005 10:11 AM


    Re: On Fine Tuning
    I'll have to ask that you possibly open this up, ...
    I'm happy to consider this now open for public discussion.
    You can win by default I suppose, as I haven't came up with a refutation.
    I would say that we are both winners, in the sense that we have both been able to articulate our ideas.
    Now let's see what others think.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 11-26-2005 10:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 12 of 15 (289842)
    02-23-2006 3:36 PM


    Message to NWR
    It seems that time is a product of matter.
    You always get time when there is matter.
    It's not so much a necessity, but infact it is part of matter.
    An analogy is required;
    When we run we pick up momentum. We will always get momentum,
    when we run. It's not so much that we require the speed in order to run, but that
    we are required to run in order to get speed. So then momentum represents time. Now
    momentum, gives us the illusion that we need it in order to run. While that's true, the running infact creates it.
    You might think that it's very obvious that we need speed in order to run. But if you were on the moon, you could still run but you wouldn't have the same velocity. But always momentum comes with running. Whether you run slower or faster.
    So I think that time isn't necessarily a designed necessity, but infact a coincidental requirement which is born of matter. With that in mind, my previous points about time, are moot and irrelevant, and I withdraw them, NWR.
    I've always thought that time has a connection to movement. Movement of growth, movement of momentum.
    Perhaps time for me, is defined as the unhindered ability for matter to move.
    When I say 'move', I refer to everything's(matter's) movement. Because if we paused time, then we would never escape a moment. Matter couldn't grow/move.
    I know you couldn't think of a universe without time. But the point is, that you don't have to anyway, because time can come about via matter, parsimoniously, without God. Forgive my mistake. I know it's a long time since this thread, but the honest thing to do is to inform you.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by nwr, posted 02-23-2006 7:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 13 of 15 (289892)
    02-23-2006 7:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
    02-23-2006 3:36 PM


    Ramblings about time
    It seems that time is a product of matter.
    It has been a long time since the previous post to this thread. So what's the matter with that?
    You have some interesting comments there, mike.
    Time is an interesting concept, and there has been philosophizing about it. The Christian view appears to be that God is outside of time, and this would presume that there can be some kind of existence not based on time. Quantum theorists sometime speculate that time might be quantized.
    I have heard of primitive cultures who don't have our concept of time. I imagine that they must have some concept of change. And since change and time are related, they must have some sort of concept of time. But apparently time is not important to them as it is to us.
    An aside - we need a better term than "primitive cultures." Maybe it is our culture that is primitive and they have a better one.
    I know you couldn't think of a universe without time.
    Our concepts become deeply ingrained, so it is hard to imagine a universe without them. But I think I can imagine a universe with change, but without time being identified as an important concept.
    It is interesting that time is already clearly present in the Genesis creation story. So our concept of time is rather old.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 02-23-2006 3:36 PM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2006 11:57 AM nwr has replied

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 14 of 15 (290299)
    02-25-2006 11:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
    02-23-2006 7:50 PM


    Re: Ramblings about time
    And ofcourse, change is surely, as far as I know, impossible without time.
    I think I'm definitely going to see time as induced at the moment of movement. So unless heaven's a painting, I insiste there's time there!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by nwr, posted 02-23-2006 7:50 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by nwr, posted 02-27-2006 8:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 15 of 15 (290826)
    02-27-2006 8:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
    02-25-2006 11:57 AM


    Re: Ramblings about time
    And ofcourse, change is surely, as far as I know, impossible without time.
    I agree.
    I think I'm definitely going to see time as induced at the moment of movement. So unless heaven's a painting, I insiste there's time there!
    Yes, IMO you are right. The God of the Bible is a God who experiences time. The creationist's God is a God who acts over time.
    Perhaps the deist's God, one who set the laws of nature into action then allowed nature to take its course, could be conceived of as outside of time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-25-2006 11:57 AM mike the wiz 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