Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 120 of 396 (499610)
02-19-2009 12:12 PM


Observable Laws do not point to Design
This post was moved here because it was off-topic from the following thread:
Message 133
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
Name one thing, just ONE thing that points to design.
Your kidding correct? How about anything and everything that follows observable laws or what appear to be laws.
I do not think you understood the context of Huntard's request. Huntard wasn't asking for something that "points to" design in the sense that it simply doesn't contradict design as a possible conclusion.
Huntard is asking for something that "points to" design in the sense that it doesn't point to the other possible conclusions as well.
Example:
Fossils that are 65 million years old "point to" the possible conclusion that the earth is 4 billion years old, because it most certainly does not "point to" the possible conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old.
The following possibilites are not logically impossible:
-the universe is designed and has observable laws
-the universe is not designed and has observable laws
(nothing we know of contradicts either of these as possibilities)
So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.
It is not the ability of observable laws to come from non-design that leads people to believe God doesn't exist. People are led to believe that God doesn't exist because He doesn't do anything, ever, that can be verifiably identified from a universe where He does not exist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:23 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 128 of 396 (499763)
02-20-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Observable Laws do not point to Design
Bertot writes:
Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?
I don't care.
I was talking about this:
Stile writes:
So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.
And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design. But, it also does not contradict a non-designed universe. Since it doesn't focus any more on one then the other, then it doesn't "point to" one or the other.
However, if you'd like to change the subject, I can answer your questions as well.
Is it a very real POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No. Is there anything wrong with that deductive conclusion?
The answer to your question is No.
You need to get rid of that "very real possibility" part. It's certainly "a possibility" in the sense that it is not completely ruled out just like any number of imaginary thoughts.
However, it most certainly is not a very real (or even "kinda real") possibility unless it has at least a bit of verifiable, objective evidence that actually "points to" Design.
As long as there is no verifiable, objective evidence that actually points to Design... it reamins a simple, strictly-theoretical, cannot-be-distinguished-from-imagination possibility. Such things are not "very real" or even "kinda real" the are "very imaginary."
However, if we alter your question slightly:
quote:
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well have been created, Yes or No.
Then the answer is Yes.
But, of course, you have to admit that it's in the same boat as this statement as well:
quote:
Is it a theoretical POSSIBILITY given the fact that the universe operates in the form of lawful order that it may very well be Einstein's boogers, Yes or No.
And the answer to this is, again, Yes.
Not really great company.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:00 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 131 of 396 (499770)
02-20-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 9:00 AM


Do you understand what you're saying?
Bertot writes:
Well I am at a lose to try and answer such folly. I will take your very twisted statement here and the whole post as a YES to the answer to my simple question. So in answering the question in the affirmative, (atleast in some parts of the post),one is not irrational, delusional or insane for having good reasons for believing in a designer? Wow, where do you go from that?
Feel free to "take my whole post" any way you'd like. I can't stop you.
However, when I quite explicitely answer your question with a No:
quote:
The answer to your question is No.
...and you "take my whole post" as a Yes answer... well, I think it's pretty obvious where the irrational, delusional and quite possibly insane thoughts are coming from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:31 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 133 of 396 (499772)
02-20-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 9:31 AM


It's not hard, really
Bertot writes:
Who gave you the right to alter my question to fit your answer. Since my question is one that conforms to physical realities and is not theoretical in nature (no pun intended) you have no right to rearrange my question, so the answer to my question is YES in this form:
Percy gave me the right when he decided to host this site. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I quite explicitly answered your question un-altered, and then went on to alter it in such a way that the answer I'm guessing you're looking for becomes possible. This obvious desire of yours to force your question to one specific answer without having any verifiable, objective evidence to do so is the hallmark of people doing things for their own private, selfish goals with no respect for honesty or truth.
There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities. Until you can show this is true about the question you're proposing... then it will remain as only a theoretical possibility.
And as long as you insist on your question including the words "very real," the answer remains an emphatic NO until you're able to provide some verifiable, objective evidence that shows your possibility can actually exist outside of theoretical musings.
Bertot writes:
Stile writes:
And what you've said in no way "points to" Design. Again, it simply does not contradict Design...
The answer then becomes maybe yes, maybe no.
The answer only becomes "maybe yes, maybe no" once you have shown some real, verifiable, objective evidence to support your position. Until you do that, your position remains unavoidably equal to all other purely imaginary, theoretical speculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 9:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 135 of 396 (499781)
02-20-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 10:18 AM


Re: It's not hard, really
I don't think you're understanding. But I'll try again:
Bertot writes:
Does the physical universe exist?
For the purposes of this line of questioning... Yes.
Does the physical universe appear atleast to follow some sort of physical laws that are in motion?
Yes.
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
No.
Bertot, the only thing that EVER takes an idea out of the realm of theoretical non-existence and into the realm of "very real" reality is verifiable, objective evidence.
Being "based against objective, verifiable realities" is not enough.
My idea that this universe is Einsteins boogers is "based against objective, verifiabe realities." That's not enough to consider it as a "very real" possibility. It is only enough to consider it as a non-existing, not-real, theoretical possibility.
You can prove me wrong, though. All you have to do is come up with one thing that does exist of which there is no verifiable, objective evidence that points to its existence. Show that, and you'll show that things can exist without necessarily having verifiable, objective evidence. Personally I think this task is impossible. But you can certainly prove me wrong if you're able to show such. Once you've done this, you're theoretical possibility that has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence would then become a "very real" possibility as well. Without this, your possibility only exists as imagination. And, like the rest of our imagination, it is not real.
My imaginary possibility of the universe being Einstein's boogers has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence. Therefore it is most certainly is not a "very real possibility", it is "a possibility" but only in the kinda lame can't-distinguish-it-from-imgaination sort of way.
Your imaginary possibility of the universe being Designed has no verifiable, objective evidence that points to it's existence. Therefore it is most certainly is not a "very real possibility", it is "a possibility" but only in the kinda lame can't-distinguish-it-from-imgaination sort of way.
Further, given the fact that there are only two possibilities, it was designed or it was not, the physical realities, would lend as much credibility to designed as self constructed.
No.
The physical realities do not lend as much credibility to being Designed as being self constructed.
The physical reality we exist within shows us that almost everything that exists is self constructed. From galaxies to quarks. Almost everything has verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being self constructed. We're talking 99.9999999...9999 (something incredibly rediculous) percent. There are a few things that we know to exist (because they have verifiable, objective evidence pointing to their existence) but we do not yet have verifiable, objective evidence pointing them to be self constructed. This is likely just because we haven't progressed enough technologically yet, but it's also possible that such evidence just doesn't exist at all for some certain things. However, to say that such a thing in itself is "verifiable, objective evidence" that they are actually Designed is incredibly irrational, delusional and quite possibly insane. Especially when considering the next point:
The physical reality we exist within does not show anything to be Designed. From galaxies to quarks. Nothing has a single piece of verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being Designed. Not one single thing that exists. Not the biggest, not the smallest, not anything in between. There are a lot of things "that exist" and absolutely NONE of them have ANY verifiable, objective evidence pointing to them being Designed.
They seem to be extreme polar opposites. They most certainly do not have the same credibility from our physical reality. One exists as a "very real possibility", the other is only a theoretical possibility that is not real because it only resides in our imagination.
You know that they are very real possibilites. Thus you insistence that my question is theoretical in simply nonsense.
What are you talking about? There's that irrationality, delusion and insanity of yours coming out again. I am most certainly, very explicitly, very plainly telling you that I know "self-constructed" is a "very real possibility" such that it has verifiable, objective evidence pointing in it's direction just like every other thing that exists. I am also very simply telling you that I know "Desinged" is only a theoretical possibility because it does not have any verifiable, objective evidence pointing in it's direction just like every other thing that does not exist in reality and only resides in our imaginations.
Bertot writes:
Stile writes:
There is a big difference in the existence between "very real possibilities" and "theoretical" possibilities. One being that real possibilities actually exist and theoretical possibilites do not. We know this because all real possibilities have some sort of verifiable, objective evidence that "points to" them as being possibilities
Atually you have answered your own question.
More delusion and irrationality?
I never asked a question in that quote you seem to be answering, Bertot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 10:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 11:19 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 138 of 396 (499789)
02-20-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dawn Bertot
02-20-2009 11:19 AM


Again, and again, and again
Bertot writes:
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions.
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.
You are equivocating. And you are equivocating in a way that is irrational, delusional, and almost insane if you're honestly trying to talk about the truth regarding our topic.
The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not.
You are equivocating.
Correct -> both possibilities exist "as possibilites."
Incorrect, both possibilites describe the truth of the universe we live in.
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.
Stop equivocating.
Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point.
You are equivocating again.
Design is "real" in the sense that it exists as "a" possibility.
Design is not "real" in the sense that it exists as "a very real" possibility for the truth about our universe.
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.
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.
But please go on, I'm sure many people are extremely interested in seeing what you're going to try next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-21-2009 9:28 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 9:01 AM Stile has seen this message but 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