Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
138 online now:
Astrophile, AZPaul3, DrJones* (3 members, 135 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 263 (317900)
06-05-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
05-31-2006 1:01 PM


mike the wiz

Philosophically, there's enough to conclude a designer.

Does the designer you conclude exists do so as a consequence of chance or design then?

If I ask you to predict the outcome of the location of a golfball before I hit it can you do so? Not likely. Can you do so after it lands? Most definitely. In each case the chance is the same for the outcome. If you make the prediction after the fact though, { as we do for a universe already in existence} then you are operating from the location of a universe in which certain occurences have already happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 05-31-2006 1:01 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 10:53 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 263 (317930)
06-05-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by GDR
06-05-2006 10:53 AM


GDR

It seems to me that just makes the wiz's point. The chance that the ball was going to land anywhere doesn't exist until you hit it.

If I were to hit a hole in one and claim it to be a miracle would you agree this to be the case? Or would you say that it was just chance that allowed for it to happen? If the Universe has the properties it does how is this evidence of design since it has to end up with properties of some sort or other?

The point is that before an event the chance of anything occuring is random while after the event we can marvel at the order it has only if we neglect that had it occured otherwise we could have marvelled at the order that that outcome produced.

AbE To be consistent with the notion of design we cannot help but ask what designed the designer of the universe.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 10:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 12:02 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 263 (317949)
06-05-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
06-05-2006 12:02 PM


GDR

. How can there be a chance of anything happening until an initiating event has occured.

We know that the universe happened We cannot predict the chances of something occuring after it has already happened since the chance of it occuring are now certain.
The original difficulty that MTW presented was this

mike the wiz writes:

Chance, like time, is part of space/time, but it didn't precede space time, as far as I know, as it was all created at the same time. The formal causes of these major laws, could only be present in a designer.

He has not solved the difficulty because we must now apply the same logic to the designer.Since we have taken the assumption {a la MTW} that an initiating event is required we must now apply the same criteria to the designer. This leads to the a paradox of ad infinitum and we end up having answered nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 12:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 1:44 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 263 (317981)
06-05-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
06-05-2006 1:44 PM


GDR

From a totally different perspective the Christian argument is that we see time as being a part of our creation and that God is outside of time. Creation requires a point in time for it to happen. Creation in a world outside of time has no meaning.

Creation in a world outside of time has no meaning.God is outside of time,therefore, God creating the world can have no meaning.

Perhaps you would care to structure the arguement differently.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:03 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 24 of 263 (318192)
06-06-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:03 PM


GDR

Time is part of the creation from a creator outside of time.

Since actions require time in which to proceed pray tell how does God manage to do something without the time to do it in?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 06-06-2006 2:08 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 43 of 263 (318280)
06-06-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 10:30 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
mike the wiz

God is a brilliant answer.

Really? Answer this then. If all things have a cause {a requisite you have imposed} What was the cause of God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 10:30 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 263 (318287)
06-06-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
06-06-2006 2:08 AM


GDR

The question of this thread is how can the universe have begun by random chance and then natural selection. How can the possibility of the chance of anything exist without something creating the opportunity for any chance to be a possibility?

You have completely missed the point. Mike the wiz has stated that

mike the wiz writes:

The formal causes of these major laws, could only be present in a designer.

I am trying to show how this notion falls apart as a consequence of the very strictures he has put in place. Since the cotention he makes is that God is the formal cause then we must apply the same consideration to God, namely what caused God?

I then showed how the process of application of this" philosophical" discussion to the "explanation" of God leads to an absurdity. This absurdity is the ad infinitum I mentioned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 06-06-2006 2:08 AM GDR has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:08 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 46 of 263 (318301)
06-06-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 11:55 AM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
mike the wiz

Something that has always existed (God), by definition, requires no explanatory causes.

You still run afoul of things here mike. Is stating that something always existed not the same as saying that it never had a beginning?
If God never had a beginning then how can he be said to exist?If he is outside of time then you cannot use the word exist since that is a time dependent phrase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 11:55 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 51 of 263 (318318)
06-06-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 12:08 PM


mike the wiz

God himself doesn't require a purpose because he is God.

That is a circular statement mike. We cannot use a premise as a conclusion. You state that the God does not need a purpose. This is special pleading because you thereby eliminate, without logical process, the same strictures you insist on to those who say that the world came about naturally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:08 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:52 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 56 of 263 (318340)
06-06-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
06-06-2006 12:52 PM


mike the wiz

But God can not have a purpose and it wouldn't matter. You try to get me to then explain God, but what is required is that I explain the universe.

I am not asking you to explain God. I am asking you to critically examine your arguement.You have brought God into this in the notion of a designer.

mike the wiz writes:

Philosophically, there's enough to conclude a designer.

But you cannot conclude a designer when you will not use the same criterias to examine the notion of the designer with the same that you use to examine a natural origin to the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 12:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 06-06-2006 1:14 PM sidelined has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022