Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
I want to ask this again, what specific criteria did the people building the tower of babel transgress to incur divine intervention?

​

Must've been something.

​

Mark

---

In the bible go destroys the tower of bable because the intent is
for man to reach the heavens.He confuses their language so that they will be unable to co-operate
on such a massive engineering feat ever again.Must have worked ... look at NASA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Thanks Peter,

​

I have a proposal that would prove/disprove the existence of God once & for all. Lets build another tower, with the specific intention of reaching heaven. If God intervenes, then I eat my hat, if he doesn't christianity quietly goes away, OK?

​

If God didn't intervene would any christians accept this as evidence of Gods non existence?

​

C'mon, I have more to lose, if you're wrong, the bibles a book of stories, if I'm wrong I get cast into the fiery pit.

​

Mark

---

Great idea, but I think God's agent must have told him he needed
better PR after all that flooding and raining down of fire and
brimstone on cities he didn't like.He became a much more 'non-confrontational' kinda God, very
hands-off.maybe he went to anger management

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, I would say it depends on the number of components needed to function. However, there is no point in which the complexity of something DEMANDS design, theoretically. However, the more specified complexity an object has, the more unlikely it is that the system is not designed intelligently. Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process. And I do believe science's goal is to find the most probable way of something occuring, am I correct?

​

In the end though, I suppose to infer design one must use common sense.

---

Complexity and design are UNRELATED.A lever is a designed tool ... it is NOT complex.A wheel is designed ... it is NOT complex.A frog is ... well it's a frog. It is very complex, but
clearly NOT manufactured (it metamorphoses from a tadpole
that comes from an egg that comes from ... oh ... another
frog).We cannot detect the use of any tool in the construction of
a frog.All of the fundamental operations which allow a frog to exist
and move around are explainable by chemistry and physics, and
these are natural phenomena.Flip the argument and see if it makes any sense.No definitely designed object exhibits any of the characteristics
of living things (except perhaps complexity), therefore
living things are not designed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't believe my post contained an analogy at all....

​

"It is a logical fallacy to claim that because some things that are complex are designed all complex things are designed."

​

I don't think I claimed this. I think I am being VERY fair in this argument. I said, clearly, "Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process." I never ruled out naturalistic processes as a possibility, I mearly stated that the more complex something is, the more likely it was designed. This does not seem to me to be a fallacious argument by any degree. I believe evolutionary biologists would be much more comfortable if life was not so complex, but unfortunately, life is extremely complex. I never claimed that complexity "requires" a designer, I merely stated that there seems to be a breaking point in which it is more likely that something was designed. Whether or not life is "too" complex (the breaking point) is where are opinions differ. I believe life is too complex, you do not.

---

Why does complexity imply design ?Does simplicity imply that an object was NOT designed ?Effectively what you are saying is 'I can't beleive that that
wasn't designed!'I think some more objective design criteria would be useful.
Not sure there are any though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by William E. Harris:

Just a small aside, is not Occam spelled Ockham, from William Ockham, and English philosopher of the 1300s.
William

---

There was no consistent spelling in the 1300's so any spelling will do.