EvC Forum: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 25 of 327 (500053)
02-22-2009 1:08 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
02-22-2009 11:13 AM

While you might have questioned my perception, you also questioned reality itself and I believe you did it again in the above qupote.

No, just yours. You cannot claim anything about reality that you percieve as "absolute" therefore it remains theoretical.

Yes Stile did admit to a designer when he answered yes to the question of possibility.

No. He did not. He said there is a "theoretical" possibility for design in nature, the designer has nothing to do with it. You yourself have said that design could have arrose naturally, no designer needed.

The contradiction remains. I assume you just refuse to see it and refuse to answer it. Typical.

As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways. It is not reasonable to say that all in the universe points to it being a product of itself, given other facts and call this a real possibility, then turn around and say design is only a theoretical possibility, such statements make no sense.

No one has said this. Both senarios are equally theoretical. That the objective evidence points to natural causes says nothing to the fact that BOTH senarios remain fundamentally theoretical.

Either both are real possibilities or both or theoretical.

They are BOTH fundamentally theoretical.

my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place.

Sorry, I don't know what "eternal in character" means or "a product of itself". Could you be a bit more clear?

Come on Onifre, you can do better than this, so I may conclude from your above statements that you believe there is DEFINATELY design in the universe, or would that require me to twist your words to fit my own thinking, as you do mine.

Those where examples, I was hoping for you to give me specific examples. If you can't thats cool. I didn't think you could give any specific examples of design. You have only been arguing for the percieved notion of design.

Secondly, what part of the statement where I said that, design was not the initial way or all in all to estalish that a desinger exists, to believe in design in nature.

Is this a question? Sorry, I'm having trouble following your words here. I have no clue what this means.

On e approaches design after one believes correctly that finite matter that is contiegent on something else, could not be a product of itself.

If one comes to this conclusion then one does not understand the principle laws of quantum mechanics which are very much real. Virtual particles - quantum fluctuations, violate your above statement.

oni writes:

Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?

bertot writes:

I already did:
Bertot writes:

Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding.

This did not answer the question. Can you give a brief description of the "design principle"?

If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist.

Is that the best you have?

Quantum mechanics defies all logical understanding, it does not operate in an orderly fashion. Without going off topic, as these are just examples, the universe, at it's most fundamental level, loses ALL sense of logic, order, known function and understanding. So, your conclusion that the universe operates in an orderly fashion and logically, is far from being a correct assertion.

Really thats interesting. So when your driving down the road and your wipers to the vehicle come on automatically, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When you switch to 4 wheel drive as in the case of my Lexus, would you say the designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment. When the air bag comes out when you hit a tree, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT its enviornment.

When the vehicle does anything ATUOMATICALLY without your instructions, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment?

This would work if I had said vehicle, since I said motor:

Oni writes:

A motor is designed for a specific purpose.

I have no clue what you're talking about.

A motor is created for one specific funtion/application/purpose. It does not adapt and change it's functions due to environmental changes. That your Lexus has been programed to do all the things you mentioned doesn't mean your engine changes it's function. Terrible analogy, Bertot.

Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Any other questions.

Yes, can you show evidence to prove that?

Edited by onifre, : clearer point on the "logic" issue.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-22-2009 11:13 AM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-23-2009 9:46 AM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 30 of 327 (500173)
02-23-2009 7:22 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
02-23-2009 9:46 AM

Is your existence and the things around you real or theoretical.

Theoretically they are real. All of the evidence I have points to it being real, but I could very well be trapped in a Matrix type program experiencing all of this and never know for sure. I cannot claim that the reality I experience is absolutely real.

The only point this is for is when you say you perceive things to be designed. That is theoretically possible, but not absolutely true. Even if you had some objective evidence to point to, it still remains theoretically possible.

The point then is to weigh the evidence.

The only contradiction is where you refuse to acknowledge evidence and reality as such. You then throw words at both of them and pretend that is takes care of the matter. If one cant even see reality as actual or real, how will one ever see any design in anything. I am surprised you believe there is design in mans creation, since you did not even see the computer in front of you actually designed. Maybe your computer was not designed, since you did not wittness it. Or maybe we could say its only a theoretical possibility, your computer just happened, or that it wasd theoretiacally designed by man.

The contradiction remains. Stile said "theoretically possible" for design, he never mentioned a "designer".

Thats called wishful thinking, the objective evidence does not point to natural causes.

As of yet that is all the evidence points to. This is the concensus by those who study the evidence, if you have evidence that disproves it other than "I see design" please bring it forward.

But please by all means feel free to present any material you believe POINTS to natural causes,

Really?

- formation of planets
- formation of the Sun
- Gravity
- all of the elements on the Periodic Table
- human life...all life -(not abiogenesis, I mean reproduction)
- a tree growing
- Sun rise
- solar eclipes
- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc..............

If both are EQUALLY theoretical, then both are explanations for the origins of the material universe.

If you notice I said the objective evidence points to natural causes, this is the consensus amongst science, that is what is taught.

There has been more than enough time in the ID propaganda camp to put together viable evidence that points to design. And that Bertot is what has been continuously shot down. ID hasn't made it's evidence clear, therefore they will continue to be outside looking in.

But since both propositions are even "theoretical" possibilites, even as you have now admitted and both are nondemonstratable, absolutely, as you admit, then both should be included or excluded together.

The flying spaghetti monster is a theoretical possibility too. So is a multi god type system, or multi designer. Nothing says it has to be one. But the key is, where does the objective evidence lead you, it leads to natural causes.

And if you are going to be evasive and play the dumb card, we will probably not make much process. I dont mind being more specific when yu stop being so obviously evasive, agreed?

I study science, I have never heard the term "eternal in character" or "a product of itself". Can you be a bit more specific.

So you don't think I'm being evasive, I'll give examples:

1)Do you mean it has always existed? - eternal in character.

2)Do you mean created from itself? - a product of itself

For 1, I agree, For 2, I do not. (2) would require a moment of creation. A moment when there was nothing and them something. Since the very notion of a causal moment before anything existed makes no sense, I do not agree. Unless I miss understand what "a product of itself" means, then could you be a bit more clear?

Would the obvious design in the single cell and its overwhelming compleity help you, I doubt it.

There is NO obvious design in the cell. The cell is made up of independent parts, that is the only obvious thing about it. And complexity means nothing in defense for design, I thought by now that was a moot point already?

What do you see so obvious in the cell that points to design?

When all of the intracacies of DNA are laid out and demonstrated, the skeptic has only tosay, "well I dont see that".

So you think because DNA is complex to you, it requires design? Thats it, thats the proof?

So the collective evidence would suggest that while design is not absolutely provable, neither is a natural explanation.

All of the collective evidence for natural phenomena are organized neatly within the frame work of science. Not one single piece of evidence, within the frame work of science, exists to support a design hypothesis. It remains theoretical in principle, as a possiblity, as does a diest type God who created then left it alone, it however fails at presenting objective evidence to support it. If they had it, it would already be in science books.

All you are doing is telling me I'm blind for not seeing design. Sorry if I take what's in science books as a better explanation for natural phenomena rather what you perceive to be obvious.

I, like most on this site, don't see it. Please show us the objective evidence. Go deeper that "look it's complex" or "it looks like it was designed".

You dont understand much about debate do you, you are being very evasive, AGAIN. If I present an explanation of something as I did above, it is your job to refute that contention or explanation, not just wave the hand and say it is not valid or dismiss it outright. Ill accept your inablity to do this as an admission in that respect, or Ill wait for a refutation of the design concept I have now repeadly presented.

What are you talking about, I followed the statement with a full paragraphs worth of explanation.

You even quote it after:

Oni writes:

You think the universe operates in a logical fashion? Have you really looked at what's out there? We are just now shaking off all of the theories were thought to be logic about the universe that have existed since the dawn of thinking man. ALL we had were logical conclusions that were wrong. NOW, due to certain scientist and certain theories, there has been some foward progress into a more logical understanding, but it is still far from making enough logical sense to humans to draw any conclusion with certainty. That is if you are looking at it thru the eyes of science, or objective evidence.
Quantum mechanics defies all logical understanding, it does not operate in an orderly fashion. Without going off topic, as these are just examples, the universe, at it's most fundamental level, loses ALL sense of logic, order, known function and understanding. So, your conclusion that the universe operates in an orderly fashion and logically, is far from being a correct assertion.

No evasion Bertot. You then reply to it:

Bertot writes:

Even in a process that defies what is local to understanding or that which seem to defy OUR logic, it is still operating in the manner it was designed or has come to be. While people in the eleventh century probably understood the concept of a tree, they probably did not understand the principle of decomposition after it fell to the ground. Does this mean that it did not do what it did or was intended. Thier understanding of that concept would be about as well as ours in the universe. They are still designed laws whether we understand them or not. Surely even you can see this simple point, correct.

Believing the sun revolves around the earth did not and does not change its order or design. When we discover how it works, we will only discover that it is still ORDER and DESIGN. Now, you will notice I responded to what you stated and didnt only ask, do you have anything better. BTW, do you have anything better?

You didn't even respond to what I wrote. You think the above explanation delt with laws about QM?

Let me explain it simple:

- There is no order
- There is no logic to it
- It does not function in an orderly fashion
- Predictions can't be made about it

It defies a logical, orderly, understandable universe that cannot be described intelligently with design. There is no design function in QM that you could point to, go ahead and try.

Furthermore, QM won't be understood any further, because, it is actually understood to be like that. One of the principles of QM is that it works like that. QM does not look designed by any means. If the universe at it's earliest point is QM in nature, which all evidence points to this, then at that point the universe is not orderly, or understandable. That it has become so now, due to the cosmological expansion, is a tribute to the laws of physics and how matter forms and what space and cooler temperatures do for the formation of solid matter.

You can step back and say it was all designed to do that but no evidence exists to support such an incredulous attemt at an explanation. I understand that you see it this way and I don't think any further attempt by me to prove my point to you will be of an help. If an incredulous answer such as "I see design, because I believe there is a designer", satisfies you then cool. I have nothing more to add.

I don't believe there is cause to believe anything is designed. I see everything functioning naturally. If you say it was designed to look that way, even though I don't agree, it is theoretically possible, BUT, so is a deist type god, so is a multi god system, so is the flying spaghetti monster - so is any number of metaphysical explanation that is out there. If possibility is all we are looking for than any number of god-type hypothesis will do.

Since I see no evidence to support these gods, I see no reason to assume design when it seems natural. However, if/when I see evidence for gods, then I may change my mind about design. But then again, god could still be deistic in nature, so even that wouldn't make design anymore true, but it would help it a bit.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-23-2009 9:46 AM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2009 9:56 AM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 35 of 327 (500288)
02-24-2009 12:37 PM

Reply to: Message 33 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2009 9:56 AM

I wil give you the final word on a few final points, then perhaps other posters can continue where you and I left off.

But hey, thanks for the discussion.

Likewise...

LOL. Lets see, "theoretically they are real", but "I cannot claim that the reality I experience is absolutely real" then you say, 'The point is to weigh the evidence", you have go to be kidding me. If reality is only a theoretical possibility, what the heck does any of this matter in the first place, let alone whether there is design or not. How do you weigh THEORETICAL evidence, if that is indeed how you percieve IT and reality itself.

You are missing my point Bertot, perhaps others can lend to this particular point:

Bertot: "How do you weigh THEORETICAL evidence, if that is indeed how you percieve IT and reality itself."

You don't. The "theoretical" part is the possibility part. The evidence that is weighed is the objective physical evidence, why do you keep confusing this?

Example of theoretical possibilities:

1) Diest type God = theoretically possible
2) Polytheistic type gods = theoretically possible
3) FSM = theoretically possible
4) Monotheistic type God(ie. Jesus, Allah, etc) = theoretically possible
5) There is no God/s and it all came about through natural processes = theoretical possible

Examples of objective evidence:

1) Matter is formed through fussion = fact
2) The universe formed from a singularity = fact
3) Stars form through gravity and fussion = fact
4) Planets form through a collection of matter left over from star formation = fact
5) Light speed is finite = fact
6) No evidence exists to confirm nor deny the existance of god/s = fact

The difference being that one is proposed as a "theoretical possibility", the other is verified through a series of observed phenomena.

If nothing is actually or absolutely real and it is only theoretical, then none of this matters in the first place and there should be no reason for you to argue for the process of Natural or designed.

The only thing that is not absolutely real is any one persons assertion about reality. The physical objective evidence is all that can be said to be real. As you would not agree with someone saying there are multiple gods in control of nature, nor do I just accept that there is one God in control of nature. But, the multi gods, and, the single god, hypothesis remain "theoretically possible". Both sides would then have to gather objective evidence to confirm their assertions.

I hope this cleared the air on the "theoretical" vs. "objective evidence", issue.

There is no such thing as theoretical evidence Onifre, it is either evidence or it is not

I hope this was cleared up with my replies above.

However, just to repeat it for simpler understanding. The evidence HAS TO BE objective to be accepted. The theoretical part IS NOT the evidence, it is the assertions about reality, such as a: monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, no god/s. Those are the theoretical possibilities. The objective evidence, in my opinion and it seems like in all of sciences also, does not exists to confirm the God/s hypothesis, everything looks as though it works without any metaphysical intervention.

Isnt it interesting that when you are demanding evidence from me, you complain that I have no better than to point out nature and examples in nature itself, then what does Onifre do?, he turns right around and does the very thing he complains about. Thats because its all theoretical correct.

I have alreay agreed your point that you view my examples as being designed, you don't have to be condescending about it.

However, that is not my point. You say I wasn't there for the formation of the universe so how would I know? You are right, I wasn't there, but I know because enough work has been done to investigate this phenomenon and I have spent some time studying this. But, if gathering objective evidence and forming conclusions on the basis of that evidence is not good enough for you then CSI and Forensic scientist are out of a job, and criminals are taking over since none of the evidence will work 'cause no one was there to confirm what they did.

You mean the theoretical scientists and thier theoretical conclusions correct.

No, I mean scientist and their conclusions based off of objective evidence.

For all intents and purposes this debate is over, due to the fact that you have made contradictory and unavoidable false conclusions, from which you cannot now extricate yourself or your position.

I think you are trying to win so badly, as you always do, that you fail to understand the position of the person you are debating. You flood threads with condecending comments and stupid snide remarks that just make you out to be an ignorant asshole. If you would understand what I'm saying and stop thinking you are so fucking intelligent, you might actually learn something. That goes for me too, which I have done by trying to follow your position carefully. But, when I ask a question you tell me I'm being evasive or using my comedy or simply can't debate. Read carefully and stop being a douche bag.

My position in simple terms.

God, gods, any other entity or metaphysical deity = theoretically possible. That is all that is theoretical.

Objective evidence is not a theoretical positions because it is physically observed, makes predictions and can be verified.

"Outside looking in", at what Onifre? You do realize you reside in the same sphere of determinal evidence as I correct?

Again, if you could follow the conversation properly you wouldn't asks such stupid fuckinig questions.

Outside looking into Science. If they don't present objecitve evidence they will be outside looking into science. How hard is that to follow?

So I see from your above statements that you werent playing the dumb card you were simply being evasive, thanks for altleast admitting that.

Go fuck yourself. I'm trying to have a civil discussion yet you continue with your stupid fucking comments.

I warned you about using your comedy routines in your attempts to make arguments.

Go fuck yourself.

So now its science that takes the disorderly, chaotic systems in nature and organizes them for us in science neatly to help us understand what we could not otherwise. I have a better solution. Science simply interprets the ALREADY existing order and design in nature and classifies and interprests the design, to help us apply its uses.

For science to start with the premise of design it must first deal with the lack of evidence that supports a designer hypothesis. Since no designer can be objectively verified, no conclusion can be made about design. We just see order from understood laws, not from a designer entity. I know you feel it is designed because you already start with the premise that a designer exists, ok, but I don't start with that premise and neither does science because that premise requires faith. Faith is needed when there is a lack of objective evidence, science ONLY deals with objective evidence. SO, if you want a scientific explanation for the workings of nature, science can only explain what it has concluded through objective evidnce. IF you want a philosophical explanation then ALL theoretical possibilities can be introduced - (ie. God, gods, FSM, natural)

I am telling you you are blind for not recognizing that the NATURAL explanation is as theoretical as anyother.

But, Bertot, I have agreed to this, why do you continue to be so hardheaded on this point?

Theoreitcal possiblities:

- Natural
- God
- gods
- FSM
- Scientist in another universe created ours
- The Matrix
- any kind of matephysical idea

All theoretically possible, are we clear?

I clearly pointed out that our lack of understanding about the way in which a thing works or whether it appears orderly to us has nothing to do with whether its present condition is designed or not. You side step this valid argument by saying I ignored yours,really Onifre.

Actually I have continuously agreed to this point. Our lack of understanding makes any assertion about nature theoretical, agreed.

ONLY objective evidence can be present to support or reject the theoretical possiblities of any assertion. If you have no objective evidence to suppost any of the above theoretical possibilities, then you have an unsupported assertion.

Which is where you and I would have debated the evidence. But, since you can't get past simple points we are trapped in this semantical debate.

There is no order, that we PRESENTLY understand.
There is no logic to it, YET
It does not function in an orderly fashion, that we are accoustomed to presently.
Predictions cant be made about it, at PRESENT, that is until we understand it allitle better, like those people on the Enterprise.
You very carefully sidestepped my point. I pointed out that not understanding the laws of gravity in the 2nd century BC, did not make them not real or designed. Your assertionthat they are not deigned is as baseless as it every was.

Since you do not understand QM and it's laws it makes no sense for me to continue with it.

In the future try not to be such a dick when you debate people 'cause it causes them to attack you on a personal level and throws the debate off.

As ADMIN stated to us in the other thread, which I thought you'd adhere to:

Admin Percy writes:

the inadequacy of fellow debaters is never on topic in any discussion. Please focus on the position, not the person.

I tried to do this as much as possible ADMIN as can be seen in my previous posts on this thread, but Bertots arrogance and condescending comments forced me otherwise.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2009 9:56 AM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2009 11:09 PM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 41 of 327 (500360)
02-25-2009 2:13 AM

Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
02-24-2009 11:09 PM

Rants in E- Minor

In the meantime Onifre, quit sucking up cry baby

Go fuck yourself...NOT a joke. Literally, go take a Viagra you old fuck, generate enough blood in that worn out limp tool of yours, tuck it clear back, past the taint, and fuck yourself.

And by the way, Ha ha, thats a joke.

Don't care...follow the above instructions...wash, rinse and repeat.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Onifre and Bertot both given 24 hour suspensions for this and upthread. - Adminnemooseus

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-24-2009 11:09 PM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 43 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-26-2009 3:47 AM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 61 of 327 (501118)
03-04-2009 12:24 PM

Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:34 PM

Re: God Rested After Creation

We are not all created by God; none of us alive today or yesterday or last year or last month, last century, last millennium etc have been created by God; not even Noah.

This then begs the question, in keeping with the OP, what then IS the Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer, Buz?

All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each.

Does this mean that currently there is no way to "see" design other than to accept on faith that one particular creation story is accurate?

Does this mean that there is NO Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer?

- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:34 PM		Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2009 12:12 AM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 84 of 327 (502666)
03-12-2009 5:06 PM

Reply to: Message 82 by riVeRraT
03-12-2009 4:50 PM

tag writes:

Or maybe they are the same and the designer is incompetent.

riverrat writes:

That is pretty much a know it all attitude.

He said "maybe". That is not being a "know it all", that is being a "not so sure about it all".

Like the speck (aka us) of the universe explaining what the universe is all about.

But within the speck community there are specks that claim that there is a bigger speck that created all the specks. How do those specks know that the bigger speck exists?

I mean, they are just specks making claims also, right?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 82 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 4:50 PM		riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 86 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 5:24 PM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 89 of 327 (502720)
03-12-2009 11:21 PM

Reply to: Message 85 by riVeRraT
03-12-2009 5:21 PM

Can you fully explain gravity to us?

Many on this site could, you just wouldn't understand it, or probably wouldn't want to understand it.

Maybe we can finally get rid of the theory of gravity, since you are going to explain to us in detail.

You do understand that the theory of gravity DOES explain what gravity is and "where it comes" from, right?

Look, scientists know dam well that we are only uncovering the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding life, the universe, and everything.

I doubt you actually have a clue what scientist "know". We are well past the tip of the iceberg, catch up.

A better scientific attitude would be that we know what we know, until we know something else.

What physical evidence do you have that a god/designer is necessary?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 85 by riVeRraT, posted 03-12-2009 5:21 PM		riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:35 AM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 99 of 327 (502800)
03-13-2009 11:57 AM

Reply to: Message 95 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 10:35 AM

It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity.

Your choice of words is curious. ALL theories attempt to explain the observable facts.

If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations.

Or, I could just go to class.

So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences.

This pattern is applicable for anything, really. "We don't fully grasp things..." is an open ended statement, it really is meaningless.

We understand how many, many things function, 100%, no, 99.99999999999%, yes.

Every theory brings you one step closer to the fundamental answer but as one learns more about things the older theories aren't just discarded. They still explain what they observe.

Example: In ALL inertial reference frames Newtons laws for gravity still apply.

BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works.

Btw...It does!

Gravity is the result of mass density. Gravity isn't a thing that comes from anywhere, it IS curved spacetime. Mass creates it.

No designer required, just some good old fashion mass.

If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient.

If you really did study the works of Hubble and the Big Bang theory, you would not have made that statement.

What caused the cosmological expansion has to do with vacuum energy density.

But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know.

It does not matter what the theory explains, it matters more that the phenomenon is observed. The theory, like you said, is the attempt to explain the phenomenon.

Our existance is theoretically "real". It is a known fact that you exist, but in my attempt to explain your existance, I would only be able to provide theories for your existance. Yet you remain real.

The expansion is observed. The age of the universe is calculated using tried and tested mathematical formulas. At no point is a designer invoked to explain the phenomenon.

Where do you see fit to place a designer?

What is the physical evidence that is consistent with the design concept?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 10:35 AM		riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 111 of 327 (502934)
03-14-2009 10:25 AM

Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 7:30 PM

You explained many things of which I already get, so no need to debate.

Cool.

I see fit to place a designer, because it is a possibility.

A lot of things could be possible, but I get what you're saying. You believe cause it's not that far fetched of an idea, are you also claiming to follow a certain religion or do you consider yourself a diest?

For me God is real, and you can have a relationship with Him. But it is subjective, not provable, and all physical evidence in the universe, is evidence of Him.

Well at least your honest about it being subjective. But I'm curious how, if you are of a specific religion, do you connect the subjective notion that design is possible to one specific god story?

It's what I believe, and I am entitled to it. I am well aware that others who live their lives by the current scientific theory will think I am crazy, and I understand that, because that is how I once lived.

"Crazy" just means "interesting" to me. I'm not here to insult your belief, just curious about it's philosophical implications.

My main point is, there are somethings we will never know. So all concepts regarding where we came from require a leap of faith.

What happens when we do know, would that rock your faith?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM		riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:45 AM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 119 of 327 (503310)
03-17-2009 4:39 PM

Reply to: Message 114 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:45 AM

I find nothing in science that makes me say Jesus cannot be the Son of God.

But we would also have to include any and all god(s)/metaphysical entities; science disproves none of them.

The bible is subjective, and I believe God uses it to connect with us, if you are truly trying to seek the heart of the Father, and not satisfy your own physical needs.

How do you know that that particular book is the right one?

I'll re-ask, how do you connect the subjective notion of design to specifically Christianity and Jesus, and not Islam and Allah, or Hindu and Shiva, etc?

How did you decide "Christianity"?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:45 AM		riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 148 of 327 (504394)
03-27-2009 9:35 PM

Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:34 PM

Sorry for the late reply...

Believing in nothing, is still a belief.

Perhaps a better definition is the lack of belief in any one specific deity. I would argue it is the lack of belief because you also share many of the disbeliefs I have when it comes to any other gods. - (Im assuming you are Christian)

So as you and I share a disbelief in Ra or Zues or Allah or Vishnu, we just seem to differ when it comes to Jesus/Yahweh. So I have disbelief and so do you, I just add one more god to my list than you do - you are a beleiver in Jesus, I am an atheist. I am an atheist in respects to Allah, so are you. We both lack belief in Allah. We don't have a belief in not believeing in Allah, that seems rather silly.

Many of the words in the bible now made sense to me.

That's curious, why the Bible? Did you pick up any other religious texts to see if you felt something from them too? Maybe it would have been the same across the board for all religious texts, or maybe the Bible just makes sense because it's the only one you were expossed to? - Maybe?

There is no way to prove it to anyone.

Nor should anyone ask you too.

Oh, and I wanted to tell you, that when I look at a bacteria flagellum, I see something that looks designed.

Are you a flagellum expert, though? How close have you gotten to studying the flagellum?

I don't doubt you see design, but then again if god created everything then everything looks designed because it exists. To pick the flagellum out seems rather small in comparison to the things you can point to, like a gallaxy. Wouldn't you agree that to you a galaxy, which is MUCH more complex than a flagellum, also looks designed?

But there are obvious pieces of the puzzle missing.

From what I have read, there is no puzzle piece missing. Can you tell me or reference me to something?

To think it is just random, could be considered crazy thinking as well.

What do you mean by random? I see that thrown around a lot and as an atheist I must agree with you that nothing is random. But then again I've never heard random used in any science class that I've taken so I don't know what you mean by that.

Intelligent life from random events, and stuff that just happens to exist.

This is either a very, very generalized version of what you think is meant by natural occurances or someone has made you believe that the only alternative to god is chance and random events. And what do you mean by stuff just happens? Where did you get these ideas from?

The science behind life, planets and the universe is very complex and very detailed to be generalized as stuff happens and we're here. Science delves very deep into that going as far as subatomic scales.

However, could you give me a detailed explanation as to how god is here? - The usual answer seems to be "he just is"...the very same argument that you refuse to accept for nature - seems rather contradictory doesn't it?

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM		riVeRraT has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 155 of 327 (505001)
04-06-2009 11:07 AM

Reply to: Message 150 by Bio-molecularTony
04-05-2009 1:02 AM

life is life

Being such fools as we are - by design of course

What a shitty designer.

Being that you are a fool - by admitance - all of what you said should be ignored.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 150 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-05-2009 1:02 AM		Bio-molecularTony has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 179 of 327 (505803)
04-17-2009 1:37 PM

Reply to: Message 174 by Bio-molecularTony
04-16-2009 12:36 AM

Re: illusion made from technological superiority

Man is a machine, Nature is mechanical, and all life is a carefully disgusted illusion made from technological superiority.

Comparitively yes, man does resemble a machine. Nature does resemble a functioning machine. But, it's not because they are machines, it's because we humans designed our machines to resemble what we intuitively recognize as a functioning system...which is nature.

So we design our machines to function as natural as possible and more and more this is where technology has gone to. Systems that look almost alive. As if they were living, thinking beings...but we know better than that because machines are designed and built into existance, and not part of a natural reproductive process.

So, if, like you suggest, we are designed and built, we, like machines, would, by definition, not be alive. Nature itself would simply be a functioning program and would not really exist. Nothing would be real in any sense, sort of like The Matrix, and our relationship to this "creator" would be irrelevant.

The problem with all of this is you can't prove any of it objectively. Also, it would be irrelevant to our existance. The evidence gathered from the reality we experience is the only thing that is useful to us. From medicine derived from biology/chemistry to space travel derived from physics equations, our life and existance is dependant on what we learn from objectively studying our experienced reality. How does thinking that we are designed and part of a program benefit our reality in any way?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 174 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-16-2009 12:36 AM		Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 188 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 6:57 PM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 245 of 327 (506350)
04-25-2009 12:39 PM

Reply to: Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony
04-25-2009 8:32 AM

Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence

Because before creation (the big bang as it were) there was no matter, not space-time, no gravity, etc. It is said only God existed at that time.

You can't be this hard up to prove a point about design - NOT god - can you?

The point to this thread is for a designer, not one specific mythical character who's story you happen to follow.

"It is said that only god existed...." isn't any kind of acceptable proof for anything other than people say dumb shit.

So here we have "Nothing" of a physical nature in existence. And now they ask us to show them God, or any physical evidence of his reality.

NO. After almost 250 posts it would seem like you would have understood what is being requested?

No one here wants to talk about your mythical character. No one here is asking for proof to some god that you happen to believe in. What is being asked, which you continue to side step is, from the physical evidence - POST BIG BANG - what can we see that is consistent with a designer?

You can pick the Sun, galaxies, the expansion of the universe, trees, mountains, a single cell, a particle, etc. Then you show how any of those things require a designer for them to exist.

The point to that would be that if you could not explain why it requires design, in other words, if the physical evidence points to natural processes, then the "physical evidence" is NOT consistent with design. What would be consistent with a designer then would simply be faith that one exists.

Of course, for the sake of your position it would be wise not to engage in such discussion because you will fail to prove your point and have to admit that there is NO physical evidence for design and you meerly have faith that what you see proves your mythical character true. If I'm wrong then show proof for design, NOT god.

The only thing possible at this time (that I can think of) to show evidence of his existence are non-physical aspects for he has no physical aspects to show. God is a spirit and not blood and flesh.

Non-physical asspects? What are non-physical asspects?

Besides, this is not the question. The question isn't about your mythical character. "The Physical Evidence" that we all agree exists, is it consistent with a designer? Does a galaxy require design? Does a star require design? Do particles require design? - or think of your own things that you believe require design.

If you do think something does show a design quality, what evidence, from their physical nature, do you have that shows they are designed? The discussion is that simple. No need to bring Zues, Allah or Yahwah into any of this. Their characteristics are not part of the discussion.

If you can use a telescope to see for non-physical realities then you would have a chance to find what your looking for.

Question: How many mushrooms do you have to take before you use a telescope to look for "non-physical realities"?

Answer: 7

But as it is, we do not know what existed before creation or how to "see" it.

Yes we do.

Heres what we've gathered: The universe is expanding from a micro scale and has been for about 13.7 By - What came "before" does not apply as a question. It was simply smaller, in fact, small to scales that we can't expalin yet.

Now, extrapolating from that that a god had to exist to expand the universe is nothing more than faith based nonsense.

So our reality is kind of "on that par" with almighty God (J). We do not have such "tools" to see non-physical realities as yet and might never will. We are just not built to "see" the spirit realm.

If you can't see it, and are not built to see it, well Tony, how do you know it's there? Are you just imagining this shit, as my kids do with their imaginary friends? You know they tell me the same thing, I can't see their imaginary friends but they are there, I'm a parent and am not supposed to see them, I'm not 'built" to see them.

Kinda sad that your argument for a creator/designer/god(s) is the same as my 9 year olds for her imaginary friend(s) - I think there's more than one but I can't prove it.

So wisdom, love, kindness, joy, math, chemistry mindedness, engineering intelligence. All these things linked with intelligence that is not dependent on being of a physical nature we can show you.

Would you like to set up a play date with my 9 year old, I think you two would get along great!

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-25-2009 8:32 AM		Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 246 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 12:55 PM		onifre has replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2973 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 247 of 327 (506353)
04-25-2009 1:43 PM

Reply to: Message 244 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 11:46 AM

Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence

Hi NanoGecko,

I want to thank you for actually trying to make a point for "physical evidence" that you feel has a design quality.

Since I feel most of the beginning protion of your post was for Tony I'll deal with the actual on-topic stuff.

* the seemingly fortuitous location of our solar system within the galaxy.

What's so special about it? - This seems like you are making a point for organic life existing. And, does this mean that every other solar system in our galaxy was NOT designed since they don't hold life?

* the seemingly fortuitous location of our planet within the solar system.

What's so special about it? Again, this seems like a point for organic life. And, does this mean that every other planet in our solar system was NOT designed since they don't hold life?

* the seemingly fortuitous physical distance of the Earth from the Sun, making liquid water possible on Earth.

Would you not agree that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is determined by the Earths mass [in relation to the Suns mass]? - Had we been larger or smaller we would not be in this specific orbit, yes? And, does this mean that other planets of different distances were NOT designed?

* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Carbon.

What's so special about it? Alao, it's origin is from stars, right? - Once again it seems like a point for life not design. Would this mean that other elements were NOT designed?

* the seemingly fortuitous physical storage capacity of DNA. Extremely dense information capacity doesn't do it justice.

How does that point to design? RNA is pretty badass too, right? Are both designed or just DNA?

* the seemingly fortuitous reaction acceleration properties of many enzymes discovered in living cells.

How does that point to design? - this is another point for life

* the seemingly fortuitously efficient ATP Synthase Electric Motor in nearly all living cells. Spins at 10,000 RPM.

How does that point to design? - it's getting redundant

* the seemingly fortuitous properties of light, whereby photons are directed to P680 chlorophyll to knock out electrons

How does that point to design?

* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Ca & Mn that allow the storage of 4 photons for photosynthesis.

How does that point to design?

* the seemingly fortuitous refractive indices of Calcite & Chitin, essential parts of highly complex trilobite eyes.

How does that point to design?

* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Oxygen as Ozone, providing a radiation shield for Earth.

How does that point to design? Oxygen is an element created by stars, like carbon, that you mention above. Not designed by anything. That they came to be found on one planet is not that hard to imagine, there are lots and lots of planets.

The points you make only support that life was the intention of everything being where it's at. Of course this point is moot in this thread, this thread is about design, not, "Is everything in the right place for life to arrise"?

*Show us how planets are "designed" and not formed through natural processes.

*Show us how galaxies are designed and not formed through natural processes.

*Show us how every element, including oxygen and carbon, was not formed by solar fussion and was designed.

*Show us how the distance of the Earth to the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth's mass and was designed to be where it's at.

My conclusion, from your points, is that you feel because there is life on this planet, located in this solar system, in this particular galaxy, it makes the Earth, our solar system, and our galaxy designed by a designer for the purpose of life.

The problem with that, as I see it, is that there are billions of galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems that don't hold life. So, using your argument, they are NOT designed by a designer, they were left to natural processes that placed them where they were/are.

So, except for Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, everything else looks undesigned and part of a natural processes. Isn't it curious that one species on one particular planet feels that because he/she exists everything was designed with them in mind, YET, the evidence is overwhelmingly against them?

I think your point was made with this statement:

NanoGecko writes:

Consequently, I could make a list of evidences of A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence, that I believe are very good examples, but which in all honesty wouldn't impress many people at all, simply because they are not seeing the facts in the same way that I am.

You are right, we do not view the evidence in the same way because you already believe that a (god/designer) exists and that the evidence points to him/she. You are already bias and convince yourself. Ironically though, it was the evidence that changed everyones mind about designers/gods in the first place, you seem to be the few that still hold to this primative concept.

Edited by onifre, : lyx2no called me on my shitty example

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
	Message 244 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 11:46 AM		NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 250 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 2:10 PM	onifre has replied
	Message 253 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 3:03 PM	onifre has replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

6 online now:	AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,498 Year: 3,755/9,624 Month: 626/974 Week: 239/276 Day: 11/68 Hour: 5/0