Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 327 (503348)
03-18-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:34 PM


quote:
For some time I believed just for the sake of believing.
Personally convincing experiences hold no room for discussion, but it is this starting point that interests me. For a while you say that you believed not because convincing evidence for its truth was presented, but simply for the sake of believing. I suspect that you generally apply more discernment to accepting ideas in your daily life otherwise you would be in an institution, so what special circumstances caused you to waive such requirements in this case?
If there were no special circumstances, then during this time if I told you that God does not exist would you have believed me with the same fervor that you believed he did exist? Why or why not?
quote:
Oh, and I wanted to tell you, that when I look at a bacteria flagellum, I see something that looks designed.
Others will tell you that just because you don't know about the missing pieces of the puzzle does not mean that they do not exist. I am unconcerned with that particular thread though, I am more interested in this: How do you know that it looks designed?
By saying that it looks designed you are implying that there are things that are *not* designed and naturally occurring, and that you can distinguish the designed stuff from the undesigned. Give us an example of something that is undesigned and explain to me your criteria for determining between the two.
Humans are extremely good at detecting patterns. It is one of the things that makes us so intelligent but it is both a blessing and a curse; by being so intelligent we have the extra horsepower to keep finding patterns where none exist. We can see pictures in clouds, inkblots, or games of chance. Seeing patterns and attributing design to them is something that has always been a problem for humans. This is what I think you are experiencing; you have no intelligent limits on your capacity to detect patterns, probably due to a limited knowledge of the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 1:04 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 327 (503495)
03-19-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
03-19-2009 1:04 PM


quote:
I think that is the first step in having a relationship with God.
I disagree. I think that is humans, ignorant of natural processes but possessing a pattern-seeking mind, making up explanations for things beyond their understanding. It is the modern world's equivalent of filling in the edges of the map with "Here be monsters" and fanciful illustrations. Depending on the mapmaker's knowledge the monsters are drawn closer, over areas where a more knowledgeable mapmaker would fill in with known area. We are arguing to stop drawing the monsters altogether; you are unable to tell where your knowledge ends and flights of fancy begin.
quote:
I thought that all of the things that Jesus said (the red letters) made perfect sense to me. He also tells us to believe by faith. So I did.
There is a difference between wisdom, trust, and faith. Allow me to explain in the form of a parable:
Once there was a flock of sheep. They lived in a plentiful grassy plain at the base of a mountain; on three sides they were bordered by a dark forest in which lived terrible wolves, but on the fourth there was a rocky outcropping jutting high above the rolling hills of the plain. On this outcropping stood a single majestic tree, shading the top.
A sheep was born named Adam, and as he grew his mother taught him the ways of the flock. It was explained that the main danger Adam would experience in his life was the wolves that lived in the forest. They were known to steal out from the forest at all times of the day or night, and snatch sheep away to certain death. The rolling hills of the plain obscured their movement, but nevertheless the sheep all grazed with their heads down for they had a protector.
On the top of the rocky outcropping, the mother explained, there lived a mighty Ram. This ram would watch over the flock from his perch day and night, and because of the height he could see every part of the rolling plains. When he saw a wolf he would call out and warn the flock of the danger, and if they heeded his call without question they would be saved.
The little sheep Adam grew up with the wisdom of his mother's teachings, and he trusted his mother. However he was troubled as he grew older. Among the sheep he spoke to few ever claimed to have seen the Ram at all; some explained that he was hidden by the shade of the tree, while those that claimed to have seen him rarely agreed in their accounts. In thanks for the Ram's protection the sheep gathered the most succulent shoots of grass and laid them at the base of the outcropping, for none of the sheep could climb to the top like the mighty Ram. Adam saw that the offerings were never eaten, and was troubled. In his travels around the plain he had spoken to many sheep that lamented the loss of their friends to wolves; a few claimed to have heard a warning from the Ram but for most their friends were simply killed without intervention. To Adam it looked as though the wolves moved without check and took sheep as they saw fit, and he was greatly troubled.
Once Adam returned from his travels he came to the grassy hollow where he was raised, but his mother was not there. She had been taken by wolves; there was no warning.
Adam grazed with his head down.
---
Adam recognized the wisdom of his mother and trusted her before he set off on his travels. After he had learned about the plains, he grazed with his head down through faith. Belief without evidence, or with evidence to the contrary, is what faith is all about.
My point is that just because someone is wise does not means that they are infallible. It is quite a leap to go from recognizing the wisdom behind "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to believing them when they say they can fly, or rise from the dead. Was there a ram at the top of the outcropping? If you were a sheep, what would you do?
quote:
I did not imply that. In the same post, I stated that RNA was like a blue print.
I think you have missed the crux of the question, perhaps intentionally. By stating that something, anything, is designed you are inherently implying that you are capable of distinguishing that aspect in the observed something. It does not matter if you are talking about humans or the RNA that predated them. Do you claim to be able to determine that something is designed despite having never observed something naturally occurring? If so how is your judgment in this matter different from arbitrarily coming to a conclusion?
quote:
Maybe, but I haven't said anything too outrageous. No more outrageous than saying everything is random.
Again, I disagree. First of all my position is not that everything is random, on the contrary that is closer to your position. Science suggests that every effect that we observe has a quantifiable cause, and our explanations of natural processes including our origin are based on that premise. Chemicals didn't just randomly decide to come together to form life, they came together because of the fundamental nature of their structure. Evolution is not fueled by pure chaos, rather it is natural variability being filtered according to the viability of the organism. Your viewpoint states rather that everything was created "just because" and that the plan of the creator is unknowable and unpredictable; in other words, random.
I also disagree when you claim to have not said anything "too outrageous". You believe in an undetectable, omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything the way it is but purposefully withheld evidence of its existence from humanity. Despite this withholding of evidence it expects us to believe fully or face eternal punishment, and yet is benevolent. You also believe unquestioningly in accounts of events that the entirety of your, and all other reliably recorded experiences suggest to be wholly impossible. Frankly I think you would be hard-pressed to say something more outrageous, and it is only by the disciplined nature of this board's patrons that you are not dismissed as a loon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 03-19-2009 1:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 327 (503772)
03-22-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
03-21-2009 12:07 PM


riVeRraT writes:
I never implied that.
No, you just implied that because someone appears to be correct in one area according to your experiences, when they claim something else which is ludicrously at odds with your own experiences you should trust them over yourself.
riVeRraT writes:
How could I? If everything was designed to occur naturally, and what appears to be random.
My point exactly. I look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it occurs through natural means. You look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it is obviously a cleverly designed simulation of natural occurrences. I postulate that you are completely out of your mind.
riVeRraT writes:
You might want to re-think that position.
From wiki:
As described above, there is universal agreement that quantum mechanics appears random, in the sense that all experimental results yet uncovered can be predicted and understood in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being fundamentally random. Nevertheless, it is not settled whether this is true, fundamental randomness, or merely "emergent" randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which deterministically cause measurement results to happen a certain way each time. This continues to be an area of active research.
Quantum mechanics is a subject that is continually misused by those unqualified. Simply because some aspects of quantum mechanics are as yet impossible to predict does not mean that they don't operate by rules; the fact that it is still an area of active research supports this because if everything was random and unknowable there would be no benefit of further research.
Those confusing aspects of quantum mechanics do not generally intrude into the macro picture. Chemicals and materials behave as their structure dictates, and we are very confident that they will continue to behave that way.
riVeRraT writes:
There is no way I know if held evidence of His existence.
...
Just because something is subjective, does not mean it does not exist.
That is the crux of the issue. It is true, just because there is no evidence for something to exist does not mean that it does not exist. The absence of proof is not proof of absence, BUT it is certainly not an endorsement of the idea. There are literally an infinite number of different things which there is no evidence actually exists and they hold equal merit when compared to your own unsupported beliefs. The trusty Invisible Pink Unicorn is somehow not acceptable to you though, even when it is on equal footing with your established beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:07 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:57 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 327 (504217)
03-25-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
03-25-2009 10:57 AM


riVeRraT writes:
They say that God knows everything before it happens. So some will logically (illogically) conclude that we are not in control of our destiny. But if God created us with free will, and the ability to make choices, then things can just occur naturally. But they were designed to be random.
"They say" IPU poop out roses, which leads some to believe that IPU land would smell sickeningly of roses. But if IPU are actually wonderful then they cannot smell sickening, meaning that they must be eating their rose-poop.
I don't care about the hoops you have to jump through to make your position logically consistent with itself. I am concerned rather with how you came to your conclusion and if it has any consistency with reality.
riVeRraT writes:
Yes, I am aware of that, I was just pointing out the possibility, and re-enforcing the fact that we do not know nearly enough to even be discussing this effectively.
...
There is no evidence, subjective or objective of a pink unicorn. But it may still exist. I think if you can imagine something, then there is a possibility of it's existence.
It's not about existence being yes/no, on/off, it's about levels of faith, percentage. It is not guaranteed that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have almost 100% faith that it will. There is no evidence of a pink unicorn, but I have .000000001% faith that it could exist. Then there is everything in between.
Excellent, we are making progress. Let me just point out here that the first part is a dodge that even you don't agree with at heart. As long as there is something that we do not know you can always claim that we don't know enough to discuss things effectively, which is the essence of the "God of the gaps" argument. The argument is weak in many areas, an obvious one being that you make decisions and conclusions despite not having all the possible information. You are nearly 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow and you believe in it, and you are .000000001% certain the IPU exists and you do not believe in it. The deciding factor is confidence level.
What nudges a concept into your realm of believable in the absence of objective evidence? I won't ask where your dividing line is since it is immaterial, but it does not seem to be consistent between similar concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:57 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 327 (504945)
04-05-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Bio-molecularTony
04-05-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Bio-molecularTony writes:
To show our mental lack of ability to estimate God, we can't even agree on what is natural, what is life, what is design, what is reality.
...
Even in a science forum like this some just can't get it.
...
Being such fools as we are - by design of course - how could we effectively know the mind of God and his true potential?
So your argument here is that you, and by incredibly arrogant extension everyone else to exist, is so moronic as to be incapable of comprehending the reality they experience. Because of this astounding stupidity you conclude that your viewpoint is superior to all others.
Excuse me if I don't find this train of thought particularly compelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-05-2009 1:02 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-15-2009 11:25 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 327 (505732)
04-15-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Bio-molecularTony
04-15-2009 11:25 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Bio-molecularTony writes:
If you did a public survey of what is life and why is it different from a machine. It becomes painfully apparent that this is beyond the human emotion and imagination too. At lest at the start.
Just saying such things requires a whole lot of faith, that’s faith in modern science just because we are not self-aware of this fact our selves
So if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that we cannot really tell the difference between life and the well-defined processes of a machine. You go on to conclude that the truth must be beyond our understanding, because if we were simply the sum of mechanical processes and not at the core "magic" then you would get the sniffles and be really bummed.
Well sorry to disappoint you, but I am pretty sure that reality does not reconfigure in order to avoid letting you down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-15-2009 11:25 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 327 (505737)
04-16-2009 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Bio-molecularTony
04-16-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Everyday science just to understand an everyday mechanical machine that would have us believe it is truly "alive".
If it is a given that everything generally considered "living" can be explained as a bio-machine then isn't your concept of "truly alive" a fiction? Should we be disappointed if the reality of things does not live up to this fiction, and if so, are you suggesting that our disappointment somehow alters this reality?
Also, I strongly urge you to form complete sentences when posting. Roughly half of your sentences in the aforementioned post lack important parts, making it difficult to follow your meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-16-2009 12:14 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-16-2009 1:08 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 327 (505761)
04-16-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Bio-molecularTony
04-16-2009 1:08 AM


Re: One starts to get a little rattled
Bio-molecularTony writes:
constructed on many layers of artificial "realities"
Why would you conclude that those realities are artificial? The way I see it you must do one of two things to conclude a reality is artificial: Either find proof of its creation by another being, or find proof of the true reality. Without one of those things, even if you can describe life as a machine it does not prove that such a machine did not come about naturally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-16-2009 1:08 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 11:36 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 327 (505877)
04-19-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bio-molecularTony
04-18-2009 11:36 PM


Re: One starts to get a little rattled
Bio-molecularTony writes:
If you know anything at all about quantum mechanics - you know it is a theory that everything has a reason for existing. If there is weight, then there must be something creating this effect, a particle or something creating the effect of mass.
Anything who knows anything about anything knows that things that exist... exist. You are not really saying anything useful here at all but are also simultaneously wrong, an achievement that bears noting. Certain effects (such as mass) are linked to observed phenomenon (such as matter) through observation, and for convenience we say that one "causes" the other. This is not at all the same as saying that one is the *reason* for the other's existence; that would imply a purpose, when all we know is simply that they exist.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
You see, none of these things are normal. There must be some field creating this force and in turn these effects. Nothing is taken for granted anymore.
Where in the world did you get this idea? I cannot see any logical reason to come to this conclusion, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that the way the universe behaves is, by definition, "normal".
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So it is with life - which it seems real to the mind of the beholder but is proven false by science, as only bio-machinery. So life is artificial in the fact it is only seems real to the human mind of the person doing the thinking and feeling of information senses. The reality is quite different then what the human mind perceives.
This is simply incorrect, on every count. Logically, when we discover the details of human life and describe them then our definition of life should change; there is no way to prove life as "false", only eliminate incorrect concepts about what it truly is. That life is not at all artificial, as it is real and natural as anything can be. Just because it does not conform to the incorrect, magic-based concept of life you came up with in your own head does not mean that reality is artificial.
You are getting things backwards; when you come up with make-believe things, *that* is artificial. You would be wise to get that straight, lest you find yourself in the loony bin.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Matter is artificial too for there is this optical illusion of it being solid, colourful, hard, etc. Yet the true reality is quite different as well.
You almost have a point here, but you don't. Just because matter may be made up of a complex interaction of tiny, dense nuclei interacting through various different fundamental fields does not mean that a metal bar is not "hard". The way that we perceive and interact with matter is completely valid for our frame of reference; even though an X-ray might interact with a brick wall like it is mostly open space, it does not mean that the wall is "really" any less solid if you tried to walk through it.
Just because our way of seeing things is not always valid for every frame of reference, all the time, everywhere, does not mean that our way of seeing things is incorrect.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So none of this is natural for the true reality is truly different then what we see and what we think it is.
We only get the optical illusion and not the true reality.
True reality is exactly the way we see it, from where we see it. Imagine if you looked at the north side of a barn and saw that it was painted red. You might think "Oh, the barn is red. That is nice to know," and move on. If, however, you walked around to the east side of the barn and saw that it was painted yellow would you conclude "Oh my GOSH, the barn is an illusion! Everyone just sees a red barn, when the truth is hidden away that it is *really* a yellow barn!"? How about if the southern side of the barn was blue, what color is the barn in truth?
You see, reality is like the barn analogy because it isn't an either/or issue. Reality can be reconciled into a single cohesive idea; just like you can understand a barn having multiple colors in different circumstances, we can understand that while on a subatomic level we look at matter one way it does not mean that the way we see matter in our daily lives is any less valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 11:36 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 327 (505976)
04-21-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony
04-20-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Before the big bang, there was no.....
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Before the big bang, there was no gravity.
You don't know that. You are in fact talking out of your sphincter. Many current theories also suggest that space-time as we know it began with the Big Bang event, and thus talking about "before the Big Bang" is nonsense in and of itself.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Gravity is not normal, and so did not always exist.
Not only is this lacking evidential backing, but it is a non-sequitur. You could go from something not always existing to suggesting that it is not "normal", but you cannot simply unilaterally apply a quality of "abnormality" and then deduce reality from that.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
It is not a given that it always existed. Gravity is thought to be CREATED by particle called a graviton (energy field of some kind).
Sure, it might not always have existed. However you are imparting a relationship between a graviton and gravity that is not there. For instance, suppose you have a yellow ball. Did the ball "create" the yellow? Of course not, the yellow color is a *quality* of the ball. In this same way it is thought that gravity is a quality of the graviton (or vice versa depending on who you talk to).
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So matter is not normal for it did not always exist but had to come into existence. And so to, life is not normal for the same reason. It never always existed, but came into existence later.
Forgetting for the moment your universal view of abnormality, let's think about a granite rock sitting on a forest floor. The granite rock has been there for a very long time, and was brought about by forces beyond any form of life. However the rock did not always exist in that form; it was at different points something entirely different. Would you consider something like that abnormal?
Even if you would, you cannot really consider the whole of the universe to be abnormal. Since the Big Bang event brought space-time and the potential for a linear timeframe into existence, the time that you talk about the universe not existing during never happened. There was no "before the Big Bang" so your argument is based only on your misunderstanding.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
"Life" is a fool’s paradise, only the "fooled" think they are "living" entities. So by the fact you’re a machine (without a true life force) you’re by this fact not real to what you thought you were. ... You’re not normal if you’re just a machine "designed to look alive". Physical life does not exist and is not real, just as illusions are not the real thing.
Pure nonsense! By your own admission the "true life force" does not exist; it is the fiction, it is the make-believe, it is the illusion. Your funny little idea in your head is WRONG, and what happens in the world is REAL.
You looked out into the world and realized that it didn't conform to your beliefs conceived in ignorance, and concluded "OMG, the world is a lie!" I cannot properly express the idiocy such a statement conveys; did it cross your mind, such as it is, that perhaps your beliefs were simply incorrect? Or is your argument that you are so colossally stupid that the very fabric of reality is warped by your inability to comprehend it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:07 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 327 (506232)
04-24-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony
04-24-2009 6:28 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems.
I assume that you have physical evidence to back this assertion up, distinct from the evidence that suggests it can?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-24-2009 6:28 AM Bio-molecularTony 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