Easy proof for Inteligent Design

What is truth? For something to exist, does not require a rational mind to understand it. Yes? True. But a statement about reality and reality itself are two seperate things. You are equating to our comprehension of the universe with the universe itself. They are not the same thing. Is my saying "The tree is green" the same thing as an actual existing green tree?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Excellent point! Now why should reality be able to be described by logic? In other words, can a type of reality be illogical?! Like can a reality exist that in it 1+1=3?

Ok let me ask you another way. What is reality behind 1+1=2?The problem of people here is that they are so deeply in logical positivism that they don't realize they are certain things that can be real but not created from mass or energy. Logical truths are exactly those. They are real not because reality exist. They are real because of themselves and the mind that created them. If you have absolutely absolutely nothing, still they exist and they are real. 1+1 is always 2.

MrQ, I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not.What does that matter? And what possible connection could there be to ID? If you accept that physical laws are not dependant on logic, then I don't see where else your argument can be taken.Mutate and Survive

No, because the laws of mathematics and logic are what we observe in the universe we exist in and the very definition of 1+1 that we have ascribed to the reality we live in requires it to equal 2. Mathematics is a human contrived invention to describe the world. Remove all the human minds and you remove mathematics but you do not remove the physical enivornment (matter and energy) that mathematics describes.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This makes no sense. What do you mean by 'reality' in this context? What do you mean they are real?? Again, mathematics is the language we use to describe the universe. Mathematics is not the universe. '1+1=2' is not floating out there in subatomic or cosmic spacetime somewhere. This is a human expression or term used to describe our universe. That is it. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi, MrQ. When you say "absolutely absolutely nothing," do you mean to include mind in that "nothing"?Because, you should.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Everybody knows that 1+1 = 0.Well, okay, make that everybody who does mod 2 arithmetic. It isn't.Before reality could be described, we humans (or our ancestors) had to devise a description language. They devised a language that happens to be amenable to logic.

Ok so simply you think that matter and energy created the logic. This is the same for all people debating here. You all simply think 'matter and energy' created the logic and mind just discovers it. That is understood.Now, tell me how? If that's the case why then if we remove 'matter and energy' still 1+1=2?!!

quote:

---

Ok, may be you should define truth. Assume we have a universe with no mind in it. Now, how do you define truth in that universe?

---

I already did. A statement is true for that universe if it corresponds to the reality of that universe. Thus "there is no mind in the universe" would be true in that universe. And it would be true despite the fact that there is nobody in that universe to think of that statement.Logical truths of course do not speak of anything in the universe - they are true because of their structure. But since, by their structure, they must be true they are true anywhere and everywhere whether anyone thinks of them or not. (And I have no doubt that there are a huge number of logical truths that nobody has thought of).

quote:

---

You don't realize that how you are contradicting yourself! How can a statement exists in a universe without mind to be able to evaluate it? Statement is an illusion. Is an abstract thing. You simply can't have it with no mind.

---

I'm not contradicting myself because I have pointed out the fact that statements may be true in that universe EVEN IF THEY DO NOT EXIST in that universe. And in the case of necessary truths, they MUST be true, even if nobody has thought of them. And if you disagree with that then YOU are contradicting yourself because you are denying that necessary truths are necessary truths.

quote:

---

Are you saying that an abstract concept can't be real?!

---

Since the argument is primarily about concrete entities the question of the reality of abstracts needn't arise. So it would be better for me to ask if you are denying the reality of concrete entities.

quote:

---

I don't want to get into physics now.

---

You raised the issue of information in physics, and your claim was incorrect.

quote:

---

When you have a mind in existence then that mind creates an statement then it can evaluate its logical value

---

Which goes back to the existence question, not whether the statement is true or not. Please stop thinking about the existence of statements because it only confuses the issue. Concentrate on their truth.

quote:

---

Your problem is that you think that reality is only in physical world and nothing else. But the very definition of logical truth is that they are real and they are timeless. Just look it up in the wikipedia if you don't believe me. Logical truth are real and they are more real than physical truth.

---

My "problem" is apparently in thinking that necessary truths are necessary truths. As for the reality of logical truth I would want to read the article (and if it agreed with you without qualification I would want to check the edit history !) - and it's up to you to provide a link. Since you haven't even provided the title of the article your citation is worthless. I'm not about to go searching for an article that I can't reliably identify.

quote:

---

And reality means?!

---

In this case it would be the concrete objects that actually exist. (I don't consider abstractions to exist in the same sense and I don't wish to confuse the issue - but let us note that your position doesn't seem to be too friendly to the reality of abstract objects).

quote:

---

Ah! You see! So you even agree that you need to have a mind to create the logical truth!

---

Only to formulate the logical truths - not to make them true. They are true whether they have been formulated or not. If they weren't they wouldn't be necessary truths.

quote:

---

Therefore, logical truth doesn't exist with no mind. Now you are forcing that mind to be outside that universe. Well I am saying the same thing! I am saying a mind existed before that universe unless you won't and can't have logical truth.

---

Obviously you are NOT saying the same thing. Again you confuse the truth of a statement with the existence of a statement. Even worse you assume that I make the same mistake even after telling you again and again that it is a mistake.

quote:

---

But my logical answer would be if we assume that there is a universe that there is no mind in it. Logical truth doesn't have any meaning or definition in that universe. Logical truth is a mind created phenomena.

---

Which doesn't tell us that logical truths wouldn't be true in that universe. And since they must be true then it is proven that the truth of a statement need not be mind-dependent.

quote:

---

This was a joke really! What is 'true'?!!

---

See above. And consider what it means to say that that statement is false.
In fact consider what it means to deny that there can be true statements about such a universe when your whole argument relies on making such claims...

No! Otherwise you will have nothing! By nothing I mean 'mass and energy'

Logic is just a term to describe how we human beings attempt to understand the universe. So yes, indirectly matter and energy created logic, since matter and energy created human beings. If by matter and energy you mean the entire universe we know to exist aka 'everything' than the answer is no, the term '1+1=2 ' will cease to apply because there will be nothing aka no 'mind', to use this term nor anything on which it is to be referenced to.Hope this makes sense.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fixed quotes

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

So are you saying a 'mind' is not derived from matter and energy?
If a 'mind' is not derived from matter and energy than what is it derived from?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi MrQSorry I haven't had time to read all the posts, so don't know if this point has already been raised.You say in your OP: How do you arrive at the conclusion that there are "two things" with "no calculation"?

Ok we are making some good progress here! So you mean 'necessary truths' are not actually truth and they are created by human mind. Is that true? Are you saying that 1+1=2 don't need to be true unless we exist? You didn't clarify what do you mean by mind. Human mind or some general mind? Where exactly this mind is located?