Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
87 online now:
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
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 6 of 263 (317917)
06-05-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
06-05-2006 10:17 AM


sidelined writes:

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.

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. You had to put the ball in play before any chance exists.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 11:46 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 10 of 263 (317934)
06-05-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
06-05-2006 11:46 AM


sidelined writes:

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.

The hole in one is by chance, but the chance didn't exist until someone hit the ball. How can there be a chance of anything happening until an initiating event has occured.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 11:46 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 12:58 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 14 of 263 (317972)
06-05-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
06-05-2006 12:58 PM


sidelined writes:

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.

So what if the designer did need a designer. We build machinery designed to manufacture widgets. The widget, (if it were sentinent) can look back and say that the machinery was god because the machinery created it. The fact that the machine needed a creator does not negate the fact that the widget was created by the machinery.

Frankly I don't believe that God is a created being but it does not change the fact that whether He is or isn't a created intelligence isn't relevent to whether we are created or not.

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.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 12:58 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 2:53 PM GDR has replied
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:29 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 18 of 263 (318101)
06-05-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sidelined
06-05-2006 2:53 PM


sidelined writes:

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

Not at all. Time is part of the creation from a creator outside of time.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 06-05-2006 2:53 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 10:58 PM GDR has taken no action
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 1:57 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 20 of 263 (318112)
06-05-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ramoss
06-05-2006 3:29 PM


ramoss writes:

Let's see.. a designer needed to design the designer.. which needed a designer to design it.. which needed a designer to design it.
It's turtles,all the way down.

Your argument seems to be that because we don't understand it can't be true. In my view that's a pretty weak argument.

Science has answered a great many questions about the workings of our universe but there is still a great deal that remains unanswered. To quote Lisa Randall, "we understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the univers than ever before".

Your view is every bit as much a faith issue as is mine.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 3:29 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 11:01 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 23 of 263 (318177)
06-05-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
06-05-2006 11:01 PM


ramoss writes:

And your answer is 'We don't understand it, it must be God'.

I did not say that. All I'm saying is that we don't understand it so either is possible and either is a position of faith.

ramoss writes:

We do understand a lot about the probablity and at least the description of the way QM works. I don't see a requirement of postulating an 'intelligent designer' to have 'designed' the rules, since that begs the question about where that intelligent designer came from.

I have never suggested that from a scientific point of view that an intelligent designer is REQUIRED. With what limited knowledge I have of QM however I believe a designer is required but I have no proof for it. It is my opinion that there is a designer and apparently it is your opinion that there isn't. We disagree.

We are actually going off topic here. The wiz states that nothing could have happened by chance without something being put in place allowing for chance. I think he has a good point. Atheists like to say that the world evolved through random chance and natural selection. How could there be a chance for anything to happen without something putting the ball into play. (So to speak.)

Edited by GDR, : Edited to add the last para.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 11:01 PM ramoss has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 25 of 263 (318194)
06-06-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by sidelined
06-06-2006 1:57 AM


Of course I can't answer that. It's like science at this point can't tell what happened at the instant of the BB. We don't have the mental capacity to comprehend an existance without time. I don't ever expect to prove the existance of God just as I contend that you will never be able to prove to me that there is no creator.

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?


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 1:57 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ikabod, posted 06-06-2006 3:51 AM GDR has taken no action
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 06-06-2006 11:28 AM GDR 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