Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 70 of 263 (322173)
06-16-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ikabod
06-07-2006 3:37 AM


Back to school boys
vacum of space so that life can exsist .. ?? who said life should exsit , most of the universe is the vacum of space between the stars
It's not that life should exist, it's that it is a fact that life does exist. A fact which should not be ignored.
side note ... given the evidence if life is the purpose of the universe it a very bad design
I don't believe in a physical design of lifeforms. I believe that a species in the image of God was an intention, but the universal laws are what dictate the design you get.
light /star to give energy for life .. hmm nope i think the more logical view would be life makes use of what ever it can find as an energy soruce
But I didn't argue against this logical observation. Infact, that life does this, doesn't prove that the light was not created for life. There is no disjunction; one could have both a universe made for life and a lifeform that makes itself around the universe.
If anything, I based my observation on a fact; that light is an energy which helps life. That it is there in the first place, is remarkable enough.
This is all I require. This is why atheists have put forward ideas that work from big numbers; because they know that the fine or coarse tuned nature of the universe, would be too remarkable as a one off. It therefore either was designed, or CHANCE allowed for big numberse. (Because it is proved that big numbers negate probability)
Example; the lottery. Impossible odds, YET someone wins.
unless you assume you are the reason for the universe none of your points are valid
What you don't understand is that I am not assigning a purpose to the universe, because anyone can check to see if these things happen.
If you can prove the light doesn't help life, that gravity doesn't hold us down, that the vacuum of space doesn't radiate heat, and that time doesn't allow events to unfold, then perhaps I would change my mind.
The specific circumstance doesn't negate the general circumstance, neither does the general circumstance negate the specific circumstance.
Example; I have 100 balls. 98 are red, and 2 are blue.
That there are 2 blue, doesn't mean that there aren't 98 red, and that there are 98 red doesn't mean that there aren't 2 blue. In this scenario, all I need is 1 blue because I only require a fact.
That the composition of the universe might be less than 0.5.% lifeforms, wouldn't matter. What would matter is that there are lifeforms. Chance allows for this (the situation atleast), but what allows for the universe?
So, I have to say that for thinking, you and Paul have earned a D+, but you have to go far deeper and adress the specific specifics behind this whole thing, like I have done.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2006 3:37 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 10:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 71 of 263 (322182)
06-16-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ikabod
06-07-2006 3:37 AM


The science agrees with mike
Now imagine a universe without time, space, water, gravity, friction, light. Would life be able to adapt itself to such a situation? How the hell could it potentially exist?
Even the scientists agree with me because they look for habitable places, in order to look for lifeforms.
You won't get a scientist looking into a chaotic system with two stars, or whatever, because they know as scientists, that life would be found in a habitable place.
An alien with the ability to withstand heat, might survive the desert, but an earthly lifeform without that trait, wouldn't survive. But neither of them would survive without the universal condition in place, that allow both to exist.
An important logical point!
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ikabod, posted 06-07-2006 3:37 AM ikabod has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 73 of 263 (322245)
06-16-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ikabod
06-16-2006 10:53 AM


Re: Back to school boys
I apreciate your points. What I mean by the lottery, is an example of an extraordinary instance.
All of these universal laws and components that JUST HAPPEN to be perfect, need to be answered for.
One answer is multiple big bangs, because then, in huge numbers, you might get a universe that is like this. I see that as a fair speculation, but it depends on assuming that chance existed before the universe.
Thanks for your participation. I concede that any of us stand a chance of being correct, but I am hoping people look more into what I am saying about formal causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ikabod, posted 06-16-2006 10:53 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2006 12:18 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2006 12:48 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 06-16-2006 12:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 79 of 263 (322539)
06-17-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
06-16-2006 12:48 PM


Re: another possibility
We can all conjecture all we want. What we have is an unanswered question. That is all if is. It doesn't tell us anything at all about the universe or it's cause. It is JUST an unanswered question.
Good point.
For me, I suppose I look for a good answer. I won't pretend that I don't already want that answer to be a Theist one, but it's just how much the person can put down to coincidence, as some kind of infinite regression.
Fair play. I personally think that God ends the endless cycle.
It's not turtles all the way down, if your first mover is a complete satisfying entity that answer neatly for why everything is. That's all it is to me, a neat package.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2006 12:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 263 (322545)
06-17-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
06-16-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Back to school boys
So basically you weren't arguing that there has to be something on which chance can operate, you really were arguing that chance could only exist in this universe.
I made it clear that if chance operates outside of the universe, then that must be an assumption. One must assume it is not only a universal characteristic created by a unique set of events and that it could exist as some kind of independent and constant feature of any reality. For example, no one would assume a planet of any other universal features, would be outside of the universe.
Okay, I call it a "universal feature" and so assume it is. But I think logical positivism favours that, IMHO.
I think it's not a big deal to admitt to this assumption being present in a multiple-universe scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2006 12:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2006 8:11 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 81 of 263 (322556)
06-17-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
06-16-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Ask why.
What if it's a pond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 06-16-2006 1:17 PM jar has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 83 of 263 (322894)
06-18-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
06-18-2006 8:11 AM


Re: Back to school boys
If there is anything outside of our universe, then, possibly, chance could be a general principle.
Why? I still see it as the position with the infinite regression. Okay, fair enough, I concede that that's possible, and afterall, it answers for the false-purpose in things, if that's what purpose becomes.
But are you satisfied with answers that just give the same questions? You must know that a Theist answer, gives everything an incredible answer, that answers for the one mindful species out of billions of failed attempts.
Let's say you're right, and chance is some general principle, then right down the line, you'd have chance as your first mover, because it would have to be. So what then caused chance?
Personally, I think the formal causes of the major elements, show that purpose is genuine. it's not just a coincidence. For example, the formal cause of humans, as wiki' described.
It seems there is a genuine formal cause for everything, to me, or inexplicable one, in things that are lacking one. ie. a potentiality of the component.
Example, a rock.
Perhaps way down the line, it was part of a formal cause, but is now rendered meaningless. At this stage, it's best to agree to disagree. You won't budge, but I also won't, because I'm convinced. I have thought deeply about my own position, too.
Even the puddle impresses me, because the hole is there in the first place. That fascinates me. It baffles me why it doesn't do that to others.
Why is there anything? If there is no reason, then there would be no thing. (just my belief)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2006 8:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2006 2:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 85 of 263 (323166)
06-19-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
06-18-2006 2:01 PM


Re: Back to school boys
The fine-tuning argument isn't my argument.
The facts about the universe being habitable, as far as I know, doesn't equal the fine tuning argument. There is no argument required, concerning facts. In this case it's a truism that the universe is able to potentially and does support life/events.
I think this concludes my participation in this topic. I apreciate your participation, and will always consider my arguments potentially wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2006 2:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2006 2:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 133 of 263 (787776)
07-21-2016 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Phat
07-17-2016 8:39 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
The thread is very old phat, I wrote the opening message in 2006.
I think I was trying to basically say that you can't necessarily assume that something that exists as part of this universe, operated or existed before the universe. That is to put the cart before the horse. Which is logically and indeed BASICally, correct.
Is it parsimonious to assume random chance or anything else we know is part of this universe, existed before the universe?
If the universe was randomly created, meaning things can happen in a way consistent with this universe as we understand them, then obviously that assumes that the dice can be rolled before the dice exist.
I think it is more parsimonious to at least suggest that it might not be intellectually FAIR to simply give a pre-universe existence attributes nobody can know could exist without there first being a universe to exist.
I find it amusing that some atheists say that nothing is very complicated - when I say nothing existed, I mean the absence of all things. If you are saying there WAS something before the universe existed, then obviously that is a contradiction because how can something be nothing?
It's a play on words alright, but not from theists. We stick to the definition - nothing means nothing, if there was nothing then "something" can't pop up according to the laws of the universe, if those laws only exist when there is a universe, and those properties only exist if the universe is present.
It seems to me, people simply argue from credulity, they believe everything can happen naturally so they conclude it did, even though intelligent design is on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to the probability of something fine-tuned and orderly with specified complexity, coming about.
Am I wrong to suggest that writing on the sand is more probable as coming from an intelligent designer, than it is from being created by the waves of the sea?
The fact is the universe and life, are far more specific and purposeful than writing on sand.
Is that not reasonable? Of course it is, these are all reasonable assumptions based on reality. There is no reality to the believe that something designed can create itself but we have millions of designs coming about BY purposeful design, every year.
Good to hear from you again Phat. (I also remember that I accepted evolution-theory in 2006 for personal reasons, not for intellectual reasons. Basically I went through a rough time so I took it out on God.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 07-17-2016 8:39 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 5:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 135 of 263 (787783)
07-21-2016 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2016 5:38 PM


Re: What do you mean by chance ?
(The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)
That is true but I have done my homework and I don't believe the readers have. For example I have studied the elements of intelligent design to see if they are contained in lifeforms, what we usually find in things we know to be designed such as sophisticated animated designs, is usually of the following which isn't just a list but has to be understood by studying why they apply:
- Specified complexity
- Irreducible complexity (I am not arguing that it always applies to any feature)
- Congruity of all parts aimed towards an overal goal and sub-goals
- Contingency planning
- Correct materials.
- Ingenious solutions to difficult problems
- Information
- Information storage density
- Directed energy
- Aesthetics and symmetry
- Clear goals and sub-goals.
Dr A, for me personally, I think intelligent design isn't the elephant in the room, bur rather it is akin to a thousand elephants in a matchbox.
I don't want to turn this thread into a, "Mike, please prove I.D, thread" so don't you think it is at least fair to say that the things you yourself might call "appearance of design" are at least expected-evidence if the universe is designed?
That is to say, if the universe is designed then we would expect to find intelligent design, and since the only way we could know it was there was to find out what makes something intelligently designed in the first place then basically I am arguing the same argument as the Law Of Identity. (X is X).
In the form of a formal syllogism it looks like this;
Every element that makes a human makes them human.
Dr A has the elements of human(human DNA, anatomy, and so forth)
Therefore Dr A is human.
To read more about this issue, you may want to read the first message of the following topic but I don't wish to get into the I.D debate again because I've done it so many times now I almost fall asleep if it is mentioned:
Bot Verification
(this thread isn't to insult those that accept evolution, it isn't even an attempt to actually argue I.D, it is an illustration of how difficult it really is to BE objective about I.D, in real terms.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 5:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2016 7:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 10:28 PM mike the wiz has 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