Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 78 of 153 (586007)
10-10-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
10-10-2010 7:02 PM


Re: What experiments?
But saying that "there is some first intelligence" is NOT accepting an answer of "We don't know", it is simply asserting a phrase that has no meaning and pretending that it is an answer.
Oh I get it, we don't know, so we should stop looking for answers right? Oh I mean, that’s how science has the knowledge we have today after all, never exploring other angles.....
Get the gist of my sarcasm jar? The truth is, God IS, is just as viable as: God is NOT with man's current scientific knowledge. Why do you think the debate is still pertinent?
And yes, I did answer the 'proof' aspect; you just are choosing to ignore it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 7:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 7:34 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 10-13-2010 4:40 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 79 of 153 (586011)
10-10-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2010 7:15 PM


Re: What experiments?
For example, I do not attribute the six-fold symmetry of snowflakes to design by Jack Frost; but nor do I attribute it to one vast coincidence.
Rather, it happens because that's what water does --- it is the result of neither chance nor design, but necessity.
I can agree that waters behavior is a necessity of the dynamics of water within its condition (environment).
I do disagree that necessity is a dynamic that can be assumed for a first evolution in a singularity. In order for a necessity to be present, there must be an introduction. Otherwise, a timeless non conflicting existence could not have a necessity placed. And a timeless conflicting environment would not be timeless.
With current dynamics necessities do exist, but because they exist does not mean it isn’t per design.
I see why you have made your statement, but I do not see how it is relevant to my hypothesis of T=0, which states: T=0 is inevitable, it was timeless, and nothing else was but one energy.
And though you can argue my hypothesis does not have scientific backing, I can argue it’s as relevant in potential as our current theories.
If you can find another potential other than chance or direction for such an existence to evolve, I will defiantly be paying close attention. I like your angle here...Under this pretense, is there another potential?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 8:10 PM tesla has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 80 of 153 (586013)
10-10-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:19 PM


Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:
Oh I get it, we don't know, so we should stop looking for answers right? Oh I mean, that’s how science has the knowledge we have today after all, never exploring other angles.....
Get the gist of my sarcasm jar? The truth is, God IS, is just as viable as: God is NOT with man's current scientific knowledge. Why do you think the debate is still pertinent?
And yes, I did answer the 'proof' aspect; you just are choosing to ignore it.
No problem, others can read my post and see that you are simply misrepresenting yet again.
No one but YOU have said to stop exploring. In fact that is exactly what science does. You are the one that tries to insert your answer.
And I looked through yet again at your posts and still do not see where you presented any evidence or support for some "first intelligence".
However, even if there was some 'first intelligence" it is really pretty much irrelevant. If it was true, the question remain. We would still need to find the methods and model that resulted in what we see. Some designer or first intelligence is really unimportant, what we need to understand is precisely how that designer or first intelligence actually did anything. Once that is understood, the designer or first intelligence is only relevant as a historical footnote or in cases of product liability.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:19 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 153 (586015)
10-10-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:14 PM


tesla writes:
I'm not concerned of what scientists believe today. That is subject to change tommorrow.
Well, I asked you who needed to agree on the definition and you said, "Scientists."
I'm getting too old to chase goalposts. If you want all scientists to agree for all time, then that ain't gonna happen. That flies in the face of what science is. As jar pointed out, scientists need to accept change when new evidence is found. (By the way, let's take jar's revision and say that scientists haven't observed God or any effects of God yet.)
So let's try again: Who has to agree on a definition of God? Aren't you just trying to get scientists to agree to your definition of God?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:14 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM ringo has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 82 of 153 (586017)
10-10-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
10-10-2010 7:41 PM


So let's try again: Who has to agree on a definition of God? Aren't you just trying to get scientists to agree to your definition of God?
I am trying to get scientists to accept it is a potential. Science does not explore, nor research, something that has no potential. And they have decided God is a religious aspect and not relevant to science even if true.
However, it can be explored. The definition of God can be mathematically analyzed for potential. And if the potential fits the current science mathematically, it can continue to be explored, since it will open a ton of new relevant questions.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 7:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 8:11 PM tesla has replied
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 10-13-2010 4:35 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 10-14-2010 2:14 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 83 of 153 (586019)
10-10-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Panda
10-10-2010 7:00 PM


Re: What experiments?
This seems as poorly argued as "If I prove evolution wrong, then I will have proved Creationism true".
Could you explain how scientists 'not knowing what happened at T=0' is in anyway connected to there being a god?
I'm simply pointing out that God is a potential. You would have to know my hypothesis (which is wholly rejected at this time without mathematical examination)
the simple version is: existence= The Energy that was first before all things, which was intelligent, and created all that is from and within itself, creating and establishing all that is by the faith that it was.
It’s based on logic of existing.
That in an evolved existence, as long as two things are, before that is a relevant question.
This logic suggests T=0 is an inevitable point, in which all the energy of all that does exist existed singularly, and without time.
A way to map this with current understanding of science: is to take a piece of paper, label it existence, and draw a small circle on it. That circle is the universe that we know of. Now, anything outside that circle anything is possible, meaning our universe in this model is finite, with an edge, and expanding inside a body that is apparently infinite with unlimited possibilities.
The necessary math (not completed) is to take the red shift data and using the supposed age of the universe and shape (egg) and plug the "undefined edge" into those points, and then see if the data shows any different results from T=0 and beyond. my guess is that T-43 and beyond should be the same, since it’s pretty well agreed upon in the science community what that is saying.
If somehow the data shows anything that is significant, then there is at least some hope for the hypothesis. The God part= no evolution is possible from a single thing in a timeless state with no environment to begin an evolution, unless the variable of intelligence is present, resulting in a 'decision'.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Panda, posted 10-10-2010 7:00 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Panda, posted 10-10-2010 8:15 PM tesla has replied
 Message 87 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 8:16 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 153 (586025)
10-10-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:32 PM


Re: What experiments?
That came out a bit ... metaphysical.
I hardly know what to make of statements like this:
In order for a necessity to be present, there must be an introduction. Otherwise, a timeless non conflicting existence could not have a necessity placed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:32 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 85 of 153 (586027)
10-10-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:47 PM


tesla writes:
The definition of God can be mathematically analyzed for potential.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing your mathematical analysis. You will, of course, have to provide a definition of "potential".

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:47 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM ringo has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 86 of 153 (586030)
10-10-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by tesla
10-10-2010 8:00 PM


Re: What experiments?
Well, I will await the results of your calculations.
On a side note: you have said (in a couple of different posts):
quote:
That in an evolved existence, as long as two things are, before that is a relevant question.
Try as I might, I can make neither head nor tail of this sentence.
Could you re-phrase it for me please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 8:00 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:14 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 153 (586032)
10-10-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by tesla
10-10-2010 8:00 PM


Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:
This logic suggests T=0 is an inevitable point, in which all the energy of all that does exist existed singularly, and without time.
HUH?
I have NEVER heard a single cosmologist even suggest such a thing. In fact, all the evidence seems to show that none of what we know as energy or time even existed at T=0.
And I looked through yet again at your posts and still do not see where you presented any evidence or support for some "first intelligence".
However, even if there was some 'first intelligence" it is really pretty much irrelevant. If it was true, the question remain. We would still need to find the methods and model that resulted in what we see. Some designer or first intelligence is really unimportant, what we need to understand is precisely how that designer or first intelligence actually did anything. Once that is understood, the designer or first intelligence is only relevant as a historical footnote or in cases of product liability.
Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 8:00 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 88 of 153 (586072)
10-10-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Panda
10-10-2010 8:15 PM


Re: What experiments?
Since evolution is true, that things have evolved; Then there was a 'before'.
Evolution in its simplest definition is simply: change.
So ask, what was before, and you find an answer. So before again yields another answer, but also, another question. 'Before that?'
The question 'before that?' is relevant, as long as two things exist. Only in a singularity, does the question become irrelevant.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Panda, posted 10-10-2010 8:15 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 10-11-2010 8:31 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 89 of 153 (586074)
10-10-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
10-10-2010 8:11 PM


I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing your mathematical analysis. You will, of course, have to provide a definition of "potential".
Potential=possibility of relevance for scientific discovery.
Yeah, as far as the math part, could be awhile. If ever. Just going to have to wait and see.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 8:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2010 11:51 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 10-11-2010 12:13 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 90 of 153 (586077)
10-10-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2010 8:10 PM


Re: What experiments?
That came out a bit ... metaphysical.
I hardly know what to make of statements like this:
In order for a necessity to be present, there must be an introduction. Otherwise, a timeless non conflicting existence could not have a necessity placed.
Yeah. It’s hard to explain I suppose. Probably best left alone for now. I can try to state it a better way but it could just become word salad.
What the hell:
At the singularity, I’m proposing a single energy. There is not much that can be said of it, but the laws that govern necessities, like structure of water and the environment it exists in, do not exist in a singularity. For a governable law to exist in energy with no environment, no conflicts, and no time, there is nothing to interact with to make a change 'necessary'. So change itself is not necessary. To say there was a necessity for the energy to evolve, means something has to exist at the same time this energy does to cause conflict. And that means time would be present. And my proposed singularity doesn’t need time. There is only one thing. And time needs two things to be relevant.
Object (a) existed (x) amount of time with object (b). Whereas, object (a) is the only object. So time is irrelevant, therefore necessity is irrelevant.
However, to argue object (a), has intelligence: (b) causing the necessity of evolution (c) would fit in a necessity argument. Because intelligence is a possibility for a single energy to exist without time, nor introduction; then change.
For object (a), no intelligence with construction: (b) For (b) to cause a necessary change it must have conflict with (a). And in a timeless state no conflict is possible. For, to say object (b) or (a) changed by necessity would suggest an introduction to bring conflict, which would produce time. This is impossible because there isn’t anything but (a) and (b), without time. Therefore, no conflict. Therefore: no reason to change and establish time.
I only confused you more right? Don’t sweat it. It’s just a hypothesis from a half educated man. I’ll leave the argument for now. I’ve said what I can.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2010 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 10-11-2010 8:23 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 153 (586080)
10-10-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:17 PM


Math
Yeah, as far as the math part, could be awhile. If ever. Just going to have to wait and see.
The problem with math is that it is abstract.
To be meaningful it has to relate to the real world. Remember the story of the mathematician who showed that bumblebees can't fly? The story is clearly not true, but it does illustrate a caution that mathematicians need to be aware of.
You can have perfectly good math that does not correctly model the real world, and accordingly is of no value.
One of the classic examples I have seen is using math to estimate the odds against life forming, and some of the numbers come up seriously against such a possibility. (I have even seen the odds estimated at 1720 against life forming, but that's another story.)
The example of throwing 50 dice and getting all sixes can be used. You could be there your whole life throwing trying to throw 50 sixes and still not come close. The odds against it are huge. This is what many mathematicians see as the odds against evolution or abiogenesis.
But there is another way to try this: throw all 50 dice and keep the sixes. Throw only those that are not sixes. You'll be done by lunch, with plenty of time for a mid-morning break. That's more of the way evolution operates.
When you are doing your math, please take the real world into consideration.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 92 of 153 (586084)
10-11-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
10-10-2010 11:17 PM


tesla writes:
Potential=possibility of relevance for scientific discovery.
"Relevance for scientific discovery" requires tangible evidence, not just mathematical speculation. And if we had that tangible evidence, what would be the point of the calculated potential? Pardon me for sounding cynical but it looks to me like you want to use mathematical mumbo-jumbo as a substitute for real-world science.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:17 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024