Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

GrandMaster Smith
If you give me the instructions and raw materials to enable me to assemble a piece of furniture, I have not encoded your instructions into the furniture. I have simply followed a set of instructions supplied to me. That's basically the process you're referring to here. No encoding is taking place.

 

 

Of course you didn't literally encode the instructions into the furniture, you decoded the information within the blueprints to create the furniture.

 

 

Cells are arguably analogous to machines, but proteins most definitely aren't. Not any more than any other complex macromolecule is, anyway. Or are all long-chain polymers actually machines?

 

A polymerase is a structure constructed of smaller subunits which are used to work together as a whole to transcribe information fueled off the energy created by the cell. A cell itself is most definitely utilizing energy to do work.

 

Evolution doesn't work towards any goal; it's a simple process in which organisms that have acquired certain traits through fandom mutations are better suited to changes in environmental conditions than others.

 

No and that's the exact problem.. Despite the lack of actual physical evidence of minor variations accounting for the evolution of multi-faceted systems, the logic behind it is broken as well. Notice how everytime I ever ask anybody to explain step by step reasonings behind the slow evolution for a complex biological mechanism everybody sidesteps the question and will always fail to provide real evidence or even an explanation that makes sense. It always consist of 'well maybe this..' or 'it's possible that..' without anything actually backing it up. It is far from being observable or repeatable let alone considered a science and should rather be classified among philosophy instead. By all means is it an interesting idea but macro-evolution is far from being falsifiable.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I've just lost a fairly lengthy response due to Chrome throwing a wobbly and I can't be arsed to reconstruct it, do I'll summarise in three short sentences.

 

At no point did I say "blueprint", I was very careful to say "instruction" as we're talking processes that are automatic and, albeit complex, explainable entirely via chemistry.

 

You clearly don't know what a Polymerase is, which is a biological catalyst used to form long chain polymers; it's not a machine because it doesn't work according to any definition of the word, as is the case with cells and any other device, biological or otherwise, which doesn't operate under the auspices of direct, intelligent intervention and use.

 

There's a huge amount of evidence for progressive evolution, largely in the genetic material itself (in the form of redundant groupings which no longer serve a biological purpose but have not yet been removed from the DNA) but also observed through actual identified evolutionary changes in complex organisms; even ignoring the evidence I find it hard to believe how someone who takes literally days and in some cases to comprehend fairly simple biological and philosophical concepts could possibly think they had enough authority to dictate what was and wasn't logical in evolutionary biology on the simple basis that you don't personally feel it's been explained satisfactorily to you and therefore must be untrue unless it were some massive Dunning-Kruger brainfart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
At no point did I say "blueprint", I was very careful to say "instruction" as we're talking processes that are automatic and, albeit complex,

 

 

When a cell is building something complex such as the flagellum motor every piece must be placed in a precise order, where does this orchestration come from and how would it evolve?

 

explainable entirely via chemistry.

 

 

Where do the instructions for transfer molecules come from? I've looked for answers but haven't really found much, but may be just looking in the wrong places.

 

There's a huge amount of evidence for progressive evolution, largely in the genetic material itself

 

 

If there's a huge amount of evidence then it should be easily falsifiable, how do you test these things?

 

 

I find it hard to believe how someone who takes literally days and in some cases to comprehend fairly simple biological and philosophical concepts could possibly think

 

 

There's no need to undermine this into personal attacks.. Most the time I wander into D&D is after a few drinks and simply forget the next day or I'll even just get bored of arguments that result to back and forth bickering. It's understandable you're posting here on a day to day basis being that you're a moderator but sometimes I just don't have the time or desire to sit down for an hour or so and have an in depth discussion with the same 4 people. While I do like to spend time just pondering on things I can assure you it's not your arguments leaving me baffled and speechless for periods of time, it just simply gets boring and taken much too serious at times.. you're a smart guy but no need to flatter yourself too much lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

When a cell is building something complex such as the flagellum motor every piece must be placed in a precise order, where does this orchestration come from and how would it evolve?

It's not an orchestration- again with the terms equating biology with design/creationism. The whole thing is a watchmaker's fallacy likely because your understanding of biological complexity is based on human creativity rather than any other factors. You see intelligence because you are an intelligent being, but at the same time you assume complexity is as a result of intelligence even when there's no evidence it is.

 

As for the evolution of something like a flagellum motor, perhaps you should ask an evolutionary biologist rather than an internet forum if you really do have a genuine interest. But I would think that, particularly in liquid environments, the ability to control direction of flow and location would be fairly critical for single cell organisms. Firstly those organisms which showed the ability to reorientated in currents via some kind of static tail would show an evolutionary advantage, then over time those that could move of their own volition. But I simply don't know, because, like I said, I'm not an evolutionary biologist.

 

What does strike me, though, is that the whole argument from complexity is self defeating anyway. Even if we were to (falsely, in my opinion and I daresay that of pretty much the entire scientific world) assume that complexity implies design, it still doesn't actually make a coherent argument as a creation implies s more complex designer and if complexity requires design, who designed the designer?

 

Where do the instructions for transfer molecules come from? I've looked for answers but haven't really found much, but may be just looking in the wrong places.

Protein biosynthesis is a fairly well understood process as it is, as I've already pointed out, based in chemistry: more specifically, the ability to create long chain polymers using catalysts. The "instructions" are part of the nucleotide sequence in DNA.

 

Again, let me stress I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I think it's pretty unrealistic for you to come onto this forum and expext a full and in depth explanation of incredibly complex biochemical processes. I know some basics, enough to know that some of the things you've said are out-of-the-ball-park wrong and to see where you're falling into traps of subconsciously and automatically equating pretty much everything with intelligent design, belying your preexisting biases, but if you really want to know the technical details of this stuff I suggest you engage with some actual subject matter experts.

 

If there's a huge amount of evidence then it should be easily falsifiable, how do you test these things?

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
It's not an orchestration- again with the terms equating biology with design/creationism. The whole thing is a watchmaker's fallacy likely because your understanding of biological complexity is based on human creativity rather than any other factors. You see intelligence because you are an intelligent being, but at the same time you assume complexity is as a result of intelligence even when there's no evidence it is.

 

 

I'm not trying to use these terms in a presupposition towards creation they're just the words that fit off the top of my head I guess. By orchestration I mean the timely matter in which things are laid into place piece by piece that's required to allow it to function.

 

 

What does strike me, though, is that the whole argument from complexity is self defeating anyway. Even if we were to (falsely, in my opinion and I daresay that of pretty much the entire scientific world) assume that complexity implies design, it still doesn't actually make a coherent argument as a creation implies s more complex designer and if complexity requires design, who designed the designer?

 

 

I wouldn't say complexity alone implies a designer, complexity alongside specified purpose would imply design. As far as who or what the designer could be is as good of a guess of yours as it is mine. Perhaps whatever created the universe doesn't have a purpose, it just is and exists. The one characteristic you can draw from the cause of the universe is either it or something it is linked to is eternal in it's existence.

 

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

I meant if there's a large amount of evidence for macro-evolution then it should be falsifiable, therefore how can you falsify the theory of common descent? Can the evidence be held up to the scientific method?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

I meant if there's a large amount of evidence for macro-evolution then it should be falsifiable, therefore how can you falsify the theory of common descent? Can the evidence be held up to the scientific method?

 

 

So you are referring to the scientific criterium of falsifiability? The evolutionary theory is an empirical hypothesis, and thus falsifiable. It predicts a specific state of affairs in the world. If there is a huge amount of empirical data that relates to the validity of the theory of evolution, then the criterium of falsifiability is accounted for right? There is a huge amount of empirical data that could be inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and thus could falsify it.

 

The argument from creation on the other hand, is not an empirical hypothesis. There is no empirical data that could falsify it. In all cases can be argued: "a being that by definition can not be scientifically examined has designed these structures through his intelligence." This is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and thus not a scientific hypothesis.

 

On 'macro-evolution' as an example, consider this clip of David Attenborough debunking the myth that the eye is too complex to have been evolved through natural selection in a gradual way, and thus has too have been designed by a higher being: http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

 

 

 

 

complexity alongside specified purpose would imply design

No, it doesn't. A combination of lack of understanding and a tendency towards superstition 'implies design' (or more generally, supernatural interference). There is nothing 'implying design' except for your own superstition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
There is a huge amount of empirical data that could be inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and thus could falsify it.

 

 

Such as?

 

 

The argument from creation on the other hand, is not an empirical hypothesis. There is no empirical data that could falsify it. In all cases can be argued: "a being that by definition can not be scientifically examined has designed these structures through his intelligence." This is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and thus not a scientific hypothesis.

 

Creation of life on Earth does not have to necessarily imply supernatural intelligence, it could as well be designed by intelligent alien life which could imply alien life came about by different means. As I stated before I couldn't say for certain whatever the designer could be, it could just as easy be an entity external to the observable universe or aliens in another galaxy, the main point I'm trying to make is I believe there's good reason to assume there may be an intelligence behind the existence of life and possibly the universe at large. Personally I think it's very naive for people to so certainly claim there can't be something much bigger than all of us outside the observable universe and nam ecall and label people who claim the possibility of it as stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

There is a huge amount of empirical data that could be inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and thus could falsify it.

 

 

Such as?

 

 

The gigantic fossil record, genetic research? Are you actually being serious asking whether there is empirical evidence for the theory of evolution?

 

 

 

The argument from creation on the other hand, is not an empirical hypothesis. There is no empirical data that could falsify it. In all cases can be argued: "a being that by definition can not be scientifically examined has designed these structures through his intelligence." This is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and thus not a scientific hypothesis.

Creation of life on Earth does not have to necessarily imply supernatural intelligence, it could as well be designed by intelligent alien life which could imply alien life came about by different means. As I stated before I couldn't say for certain whatever the designer could be, it could just as easy be an entity external to the observable universe or aliens in another galaxy, the main point I'm trying to make is I believe there's good reason to assume there may be an intelligence behind the existence of life and possibly the universe at large. Personally I think it's very naive for people to so certainly claim there can't be something much bigger than all of us outside the observable universe and nam ecall and label people who claim the possibility of it as stupid.

And it could also have been designed by a flying spaghetti monster, or any entity you can imagine that can't be scientifically examined. You can imagine anything you like. Where exactly did I claim anything about entities non examinable by scientific methods? You are turning things upside down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Creation of life on Earth does not have to necessarily imply supernatural intelligence, it could as well be designed by intelligent alien life which could imply alien life came about by different means.

Except that still creates the question, "who designed the designers"? No matter how you try and separate the universe or life from its apparent creator, this problem is insurmountable from a creationist perspective. The moment you claim that complexity and/or purpose indicate intelligent design is the moment an argument for a creator of any kind becomes a logical absurdity. By your own admission, that creator must have been created itself, and there's your insurmountable problem. If life is a product of intelligent creation then there must have been at least one point where complex, intelligent life capable of creating other life existed of its own volition and did not required creation, and if they can somehow break the rule of "all complex life must be created" then why can't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

Except that still creates the question, "who designed the designers"?

 

 

 

Nothing, something that is eternal wouldn't require a cause because there is no point in time when it ever began to exist. There is no reason to suspect the creator has an ultimate purpose (which i'll explain below)

 

 

The moment you claim that complexity and/or purpose indicate intelligent design is the moment an argument for a creator of any kind becomes a logical absurdity.

 

 

 

It's not an and/or thing, it's a combination of the two. A complex mechanism with intended purpose is the indication of design.

 

By your own admission, that creator must have been created itself,

 

 

 

 

 

Everything that begins to exist requires a cause and being that the observable universe had a point in time when it began to exist, it too would require a cause. If the universe were shown to be static and infinite in time then that'd be a different discussion but TBB theory shows otherwise therefore whatever caused the BB is either itself or linked to something which is eternal.

 

if they can somehow break the rule of "all complex life must be created" then why can't we?

 

 

Because life and the universe as a whole isn't eternal.

 

And sorry ahead of time if any of my post's hard to understand, I just woke up about 20 minutes ago lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But you have no evidence that anything eternal or universally transcendent exists. It's simply a supposition which tries to mitigate the problem caused by claiming that all complex purposeful things require design, and still doesn't actually address that. regardless of whether something can be infinite or whether infinite regression is even possible, you still have an uncreated creator at some point.

 

Also, I reject the notion of purpose in evolution. "Purpose" as you see it is decided after the fact by whether or not an evolutionary change benefits an organism given the extant conditions, not before it, and therefore cannot be said to actually constitute purpose. Organisms don't undergo genetic mutations in response to external stimuli, they undergo genetic mutations regardless and those which are best suited to surviving external factors survive/thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Clinical death is not synonymous with no brain activity. I don't think that there is any way of knowing exactly when a brain completely ceases to function. The fact that it can resume its functions after a short period of being "inactive" suggests that it can't completely turn off otherwise there would be obvious and permanent brain damage.

 

However, even if clinical death meant zero brain activity (again, it doesn't) the person experiencing these things would have no way of knowing at what point they started experiencing them. You're saying that they experienced them when their brain ceased to function (when was that by the way since there is no accurate way to establish that?) which is a claim that no one can prove, not even the person experiencing it. You cannot be aware of your brain being turned off.

Well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

A near death experience is as relevant for establishing the existence of an afterlife as any experience you could have on drugs or while dreaming. It is an altered state of consciousness (probably a symptom of anesthetics in the case of surgery) and therefore unreliable. You could have a dream that's just as profound and "realistic" and you wouldn't necessarily attribute it any meaning. The fact that people attribute these meanings to NDEs is mostly due to their preexisting beliefs and the fact that they went through a traumatic experience. You are also ignoring the thousand of people who have an NDE and they remain unconscious the whole time (e.g.

). How are your examples, even if there are thousands, statistically relevant? There are just as many people who experience no such a thing when they come close to dying.
In response to the above. And yes, although the article has him "refuting" arguments against it, the first two are "This did not explain the robust, richly interactive nature of the recollections" - this can easily be explained as him applying the complexity after whatever happened, happened. It's simple things like that which mean he's not special and he's not proving anything.

 

I'll also add that the single example you quote is from someone peddling a book.

Edited by RedDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

I'm not going to bother to read that. The existence of an afterlife is also impossible to prove if you are relying mostly on subjective accounts of phenomena. Objectively, it is also highly impossible to prove.

 

It also appears that that guy's book contains a bunch of inconsistencies and it's been debunked too. You might want to look that up before you give your support to the guy by posting his story here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Well I'm still sure there is some sort of an afterlife... In my opinion due all of the experiences... I'm happy with what I think, your happy with what you think, Now lets just leave it at that. I'm out, Goodbye all and take care. :^::)

Edited by Aqua97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

I'm not really sure what the point of posting in D&D is if you don't seem to have any intention of taking on board what people say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'll also add that the single example you quote is from someone peddling a book.

Posted on a website peddling pseudoscientific spiritualist woo, let's not forget.

 

Also, the fact a neurosurgeon experienced a near-death event he considered to be real or divine does not add weight to it.

 

Neurosurgeons aren't actually au fait on this kind of thing, aren't actually subject matter experts, and therefore don't have any more authority than other medical professionals. You're confusing neurosurgery and neuroscience here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I'm happy with what I think, your happy with what you think, Now lets just leave it at that.

that's not how debates work.

 

I'm out, Goodbye

yeah good riddance.

...with your pseudo-scientific nonsense, slight grasp of English, stinking up the last few pages with hippy-dippy bullsh/t about your feelings of elementary level spirituality. then you want to throw in the towel and pretend you're cool about it.

 

ugh.

people should have to pass some kind of test before being able to post in D&D :breadfish:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
But you have no evidence that anything eternal or universally transcendent exists. It's simply a supposition which tries to mitigate the problem caused by claiming that all complex purposeful things require design, and still doesn't actually address that. regardless of whether something can be infinite or whether infinite regression is even possible, you still have an uncreated creator at some point.

 

 

Yes nothing beyond the universe can empirically proven at this point, the leading to the assumption of an eternal cause is the age old argument of something cannot come from nothing- that is if the cause of the universe is a logical one.. it is entirely possible logic doesn't apply beyond the physical universe but I'll assume it does for the sake of discussion.

 

Also, I reject the notion of purpose in evolution. "Purpose" as you see it is decided after the fact by whether or not an evolutionary change benefits an organism given the extant conditions, not before it, and therefore cannot be said to actually constitute purpose. Organisms don't undergo genetic mutations in response to external stimuli, they undergo genetic mutations regardless and those which are best suited to surviving external factors survive/thrive.

 

 

I would agree macroevolution doesn't have a purpose or a goal, that's partially one of my issues with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Also, I reject the notion of purpose in evolution. "Purpose" as you see it is decided after the fact by whether or not an evolutionary change benefits an organism given the extant conditions, not before it, and therefore cannot be said to actually constitute purpose. Organisms don't undergo genetic mutations in response to external stimuli, they undergo genetic mutations regardless and those which are best suited to surviving external factors survive/thrive.

 

 

I would agree macroevolution doesn't have a purpose or a goal, that's partially one of my issues with it.

 

 

Which is because you come from a creationist standpoint. You can't imagine that something can happen without intention or purpose, just following the laws of physics/nature. Is there a purpose to the rain? Not absolutely, it is a simple reaction to the environmental conditions that cause precipitation to happen. Was there an intent from "god" to make rain happen? Was there a creator to rain? No. It just obeyed the laws of nature.

 

Which is the same with evolution. It doesn't have a purpose or a goal, and that's how it's supposed to be. This quote from BASH perfectly sums up how evolution works, in a way you can understand:

 

 

<ajax> Some people...have the idea that evolution is a f*cking system of...

<ajax> "oh i need flippers, i'd better grow some" type bullsh*t. :p
<ajax> It's more like "Oh sh*t look at that freak over there with the flippers hahaha OH sh*t I AM DROWNING OH GOD SAVE ME FLIPPER BOY".

 

It is just aleatory. Every generation can bring new change, into every combination of individuals. Some will be beneficial, some won't. The ones that are beneficial, will survive and thrive; the ones that aren't, will perish. And so and on and on. A species will slowly evolve over time, across generations. Individuals have no controls over it, just like you have no control over what genes were carried over from your parents, which ones mutated, which ones didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

But you have no evidence that anything eternal or universally transcendent exists. It's simply a supposition which tries to mitigate the problem caused by claiming that all complex purposeful things require design, and still doesn't actually address that. regardless of whether something can be infinite or whether infinite regression is even possible, you still have an uncreated creator at some point.

 

 

Yes nothing beyond the universe can empirically proven at this point, the leading to the assumption of an eternal cause is the age old argument of something cannot come from nothing- that is if the cause of the universe is a logical one.. it is entirely possible logic doesn't apply beyond the physical universe but I'll assume it does for the sake of discussion.

 

It is reasonable to argue that the scope of human knowledge is limited. But then to go on and say we should start speculating with our limited cognitive abilities about what exists outside them makes no sense. Because we can't... Our modes of understanding don't apply. If you can't apply logic 'beyond the physical universe' then all your claims about anything 'beyond the physical universe' are completely meaningless and baseless. Such speculation involves postulating new entities that add no explanatory power to help us understand those phenomena that we are able to measure and grasp, and thus Ockhams Razor applies.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Which is because you come from a creationist standpoint. You can't imagine that something can happen without intention or purpose, just following the laws of physics/nature

 

 

Of course I can imagine something happening without intent or purpose, that's exactly what's being used in comparison with things designed.. Where do you think the laws of physics and nature came from? The only difference is you have no explanation to why they're so precise in the way they are and my explanation is they're the work of intention, I believe physics have been dimed in to allow for physical matter to exist and ultimately life and the subjective experience of the universe.

 

 

 

It is reasonable to argue that the scope of human knowledge is limited. But then to go on and say we should start speculating with our limited cognitive abilities about what exists outside them makes no sense. Because we can't... Our modes of understanding don't apply

 

You can get much further speculating rather than putting a paper bag over your head.. sure it may not make sense to you to speculate on the cause of our existence but it does to me and I'm sure many others.

 

 

If you can't apply logic 'beyond the physical universe' then all your claims about anything 'beyond the physical universe' are completely meaningless and baseless.

 

Who said logic cannot apply beyond the physical universe.. by all means it's a possibility it doesn't being that nearly anything can be possible but based off what we observe within the universe I believe we can safely assume logic applies beyond as well.The whole thing is an argument based around philosophy more than empirical science, being that the two subjects are entirely different in that one's asking why and the other's asking how.

 

Such speculation involves postulating new entities that add no explanatory power to help us understand those phenomena that we are able to measure and grasp, and thus Ockhams Razor applies.

 

 

How would an eternal cause to the existence of the universe not explain anything? I think it would explain a lot.. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Which is because you come from a creationist standpoint. You can't imagine that something can happen without intention or purpose, just following the laws of physics/nature

 

 

Of course I can imagine something happening without intent or purpose, that's exactly what's being used in comparison with things designed.. Where do you think the laws of physics and nature came from? The only difference is you have no explanation to why they're so precise in the way they are and my explanation is they're the work of intention, I believe physics have been dimed in to allow for physical matter to exist and ultimately life and the subjective experience of the universe.

 

Sure, but you completely reject it. In your mind, complex things MUST have been designed/created as is with intent and purpose, hence evolution is wrong. The laws of physics and nature came from the nature of our universe. It's a physical universe, hence physics. Why must physics have been "created"? And precision is irrelevant at this point. It's a value of judgement that, again, goes back to what you think, 'IT IS TOO PRECISE TO BE AN ACCIDENT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED', when you can find amazingly complex patterns in randomness that have not been designed at all. Get a random number generator, plot those points to a curve, and with enough time you'll see amazing patterns pop up. Without. any. intention.

 

What you believe is irrelevant when it comes to fact. There's no indication that physics have been "dimed in".

 

Where's the rebuttal to the other parts of my post?

 

 

 

 

It is reasonable to argue that the scope of human knowledge is limited. But then to go on and say we should start speculating with our limited cognitive abilities about what exists outside them makes no sense. Because we can't... Our modes of understanding don't apply

 

You can get much further speculating rather than putting a paper bag over your head.. sure it may not make sense to you to speculate on the cause of our existence but it does to me and I'm sure many others.

 

Physician, heal thyself. What evolution and science in general do is try to find real, logical reasons for how things came to be. Some things we don't know yet, some things we know we don't know, some things we don't know we don't know. What YOU advocate IS akin to putting a bag over your head, by simply saying "well, a bigger entity whose powers are beyond any comprehension must have done it, there, explained!".

 

 

 

If you can't apply logic 'beyond the physical universe' then all your claims about anything 'beyond the physical universe' are completely meaningless and baseless.

 

Who said logic cannot apply beyond the physical universe.. by all means it's a possibility it doesn't being that nearly anything can be possible but based off what we observe within the universe I believe we can safely assume logic applies beyond as well.The whole thing is an argument based around philosophy more than empirical science, being that the two subjects are entirely different in that one's asking why and the other's asking how.

 

And also philosophy isn't a science. You can go crazy with philosophy without any compromise to what is actually real or verifiable or identifiable. Unless you enter the realm of logic. And you'll have to clarify what you mean by beyond the physical universe.

 

Such speculation involves postulating new entities that add no explanatory power to help us understand those phenomena that we are able to measure and grasp, and thus Ockhams Razor applies.

 

 

How would an eternal cause to the existence of the universe not explain anything? I think it would explain a lot.. lol.

 

No. NO. Just NO. It wouldn't. It would explain sh*t. "God did it" is the worst excuse for anything ever invented, the reason for the dark ages in our human civilization, the limiter of people and an enemy of true knowledge. Letting aside the fact that for such an entity to exist, the universe would have to be pretty different from what it is, the existence of such a being cannot be verified in any way whatsoever short of it revealing itself to everyone, which by its very nature will never happen, unless through "personal experiences" which are meaningless and useless when it comes to science and fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Of course I can imagine something happening without intent or purpose, that's exactly what's being used in comparison with things designed.. Where do you think the laws of physics and nature came from? The only difference is you have no explanation to why they're so precise in the way they are and my explanation is they're the work of intention, I believe physics have been dimed in to allow for physical matter to exist and ultimately life and the subjective experience of the universe.

 

Historically that has been the explanation of most things people didn't understand: "if I can't understand it, then it must have been caused by a man in the sky who put it there with a purpose. Wow look at that lightning! Must be a bearded man in the sky pointing out to us how angry he is.." etc.. People can't handle uncertainty, so they imagine all kinds of silly nonsense (religion). It's delusional to think you've actually explained anything that way.

 

 

It is reasonable to argue that the scope of human knowledge is limited. But then to go on and say we should start speculating with our limited cognitive abilities about what exists outside them makes no sense. Because we can't... Our modes of understanding don't apply

You can get much further speculating rather than putting a paper bag over your head.. sure it may not make sense to you to speculate on the cause of our existence but it does to me and I'm sure many others.

 

It makes sense for you as in, you can't handle uncertainty, so you imagine things ('explanations'), which are not explanations but delusions. It 'makes sense' more generally to research what caused the universe. This is being done by theoretical physicists. I'm open to the possibility though, that understanding how everything came out of nothing is beyond human cognitive capacities.

If you can't apply logic 'beyond the physical universe' then all your claims about anything 'beyond the physical universe' are completely meaningless and baseless.

Who said logic cannot apply beyond the physical universe.. by all means it's a possibility it doesn't being that nearly anything can be possible but based off what we observe within the universe I believe we can safely assume logic applies beyond as well.The whole thing is an argument based around philosophy more than empirical science, being that the two subjects are entirely different in that one's asking why and the other's asking how.

 

Throughout most of history 'philosophy' and 'science' have been near synonyms. Until the 17th century physics was considered 'natural philosophy'. As empirical science became more advanced it became a distinct subject. I'm not going to write an essay on what philosophy and what science are in this post.. But all I want to say is that "one asks how and the other why" is an extreme oversimplification.

 

What I meant by 'physical universe' in the context of the rest of my comment was, 'the universe as accessible to human cognitive capacities'. Logic, is a human cognitive capacity, and so is perception.You are arguing that we can postulate entities ('causes' 'explanations') beyond our physical (perceivable, empirical..) universe through logic. You claim this makes us understand 'how', as in, 'the first cause explanation'. But as has been pointed out, then the question remains how the first cause was caused etc ad infinitum. You respond calling it 'an eternal cause', which is a nonsensical expression. If you want to give it meaning, go write a scientific paper about how eternal causes caused the big bang.

 

Causality and time are cognitive categories of human beings. Why would categories like causality or time be meaningful beyond our physical/perceivable/empirical universe (our 'scientifically studiable universe')? How do you know categories like time and causality have meaning beyond the universe as accessible to human empirical science? You don't, which makes your metaphysical claims meaningless nonsensical speculation, and ockham's razor aplies, so they should be thrown in the bin.

 

The other purpose of such an entity was "to make us understand why." This has an underlying assumption that we need an abstract authority for our lives to have value (purpose). I think that's a somewhat pathological perspective, but if you truly need an abstract authority for your life to have value.. then.. Well, then maybe stop reading this comment, stop discussing this subject, and good luck.

 

Why does there have to be a divinely ordered 'why'? For many people there has to be divine 'why', because their lives are miserable, and a divine (imaginary) purpose is the only factor which gives their life (imaginary) value. But isn't all value imaginary anyway? Maybe.. It's such a huge burden to have to create your own value in life I guess. A bearded man in the sky can be a safe cop out.

 

 

Such speculation involves postulating new entities that add no explanatory power to help us understand those phenomena that we are able to measure and grasp, and thus Ockhams Razor applies.

How would an eternal cause to the existence of the universe not explain anything? I think it would explain a lot.. lol.

 

See above comments..

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The only difference is you have no explanation to why they're so precise in the way they are

Er, we do have an explanation. We don't have a reason but an explanation, yes. It's just you don't seem to like it for reasons you've made quite clear and therefore choose to disregard it. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it invalid.

 

How would an eternal cause to the existence of the universe not explain anything? I think it would explain a lot.. lol.

Because it breaks the very tenet it's supposed to answer. What you are in effect saying is "all things with complexity and which I personally believe have purpose must be a product of design, unless they're the designer in which case they don't need to follow that rule". From the perspective of pure logic, it's utterly laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Yes, I will settle for Pantheism :^:

V0bJEFU.gif

From Here>>

But pantheists don't believe in an afterlife, of which I do... But I've not got much more to say, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself... But I do think the natural forces behind evolution/creation are intelligent...

Thinking about it, I'm going to go for Theism... I'm just going to settle for Christianity :^: I feel much happier being a Christian. :colgate:

 

And as for you El Diablo....

 

I can say whatever the hell I want, thanks. And there was no need for your #@*&%! input....

 

 

I do believe in a high power... Just looking at the complexity of things in our word, galaxy and universe.... and to say it all happened by chance and pure luck is laughable. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Yes, I will settle for Pantheism :^:

V0bJEFU.gif

From Here>>

But pantheists don't believe in an afterlife, of which I do... But I've not got much more to say, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself... But I do think the natural forces behind evolution/creation are intelligent...

Thinking about it, I'm going to go for Theism... I'm just going to settle for Christianity :^: I feel much happier being a Christian. :colgate:

 

And as for you El Diablo....

 

I can say whatever the hell I want, thanks. And there was no need for your #@*&%! input....

 

 

I do believe in a high power... Just looking at the complexity of things in our word, galaxy and universe.... and to say it all happened by chance and pure luck is laughable. :lol:

 

 

Yeah, you're in the wrong forum. In debating, you have to bring evidence or facts to support your claims. Not just decide things willy nilly.

 

So, then, prove it. Prove that it was all designed. Prove that complexity implies a designer. Explain why there needs to be a designer for things that are "complex". Also define complex, as what is complex to you might be very simple and obvious to others. We have evidence of evolution, we have evidence of how things happened, and those evidences give us a solid ground to start our theories.

 

Now go, then, prove intelligent design. Show us the evidence.

 

Or are you going to simply go with "it's my belief" excuse? Because your belief is wrong and based on a religion that until moments ago, you didn't even think of following. It doesn't look like you're looking for an answer; instead it looks like you're looking for comfort, and you find it in ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Sure, but you completely reject it. In your mind, complex things MUST have been designed/created as is with intent and purpose, hence evolution is wrong.

 

 

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying.. A complex mechanism that has purpose is the product of design, a computer for example is a machine composed of several parts which as a whole works together for a unified purpose which is to process information. Nature could never build a computer no matter how much time given nor an infinite amount of materials needed to do so because it simply lacks the capability to do so.

 

The laws of physics and nature came from the nature of our universe. It's a physical universe, hence physics.

 

 

This explains nothing.. why would several invisible laws even come into existence in the first place out of nothing?

 

 

What you believe is irrelevant when it comes to fact. There's no indication that physics have been "dimed in".

Alter the strength of the weak or strong nuclear force just a fraction and physical matter is incapable of existence. So many laws of physics are in place and working in coordination simply to allow for existence. It is widely agreed upon that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of matter and life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

 

 

 

No. NO. Just NO. It wouldn't. It would explain sh*t. "God did it" is the worst excuse for anything ever invented, the reason for the dark ages in our human civilization, the limiter of people and an enemy of true knowledge.

 

 

Sure I suppose if the only idea of god you're capable of imagining is the christian god portrayed on family guy then I could understand but personally I would have a hard time imagining god being anything like in human form, the mental image that comes to mind is something more.. abstract (not sure if that'd be the right word) along the lines of being non-physical. Something that exists outside time and the enormous universe is just some kind of project to it and life is just something that exists to appreciate it. Of course all this is unprovable I just think the view of god being some bearded man in the atmosphere is a very limited understanding of what many see it as.

 

 

Historically that has been the explanation of most things people didn't understand: "if I can't understand it, then it must have been caused by a man in the sky who put it there with a purpose. Wow look at that lightning! Must be a bearded man in the sky pointing out to us how angry he is.." etc.. People can't handle uncertainty, so they imagine all kinds of silly nonsense (religion). It's delusional to think you've actually explained anything that way.

 

 

This has nothing to do with what we don't know and entirely to do with what we do know based off observation. We know nature doesn't create complex machines with unified purposes, through observation nature tends to create chaos and disorder.

 


 

It makes sense for you as in, you can't handle uncertainty, so you imagine things ('explanations'), which are not explanations but delusions. That understanding how everything came out of nothing is beyond human cognitive capacities.

 

 

This is ridiculous lol if anything atheism is a minority among the world even still well into the 21st century. Of course majority belief doesn't automatically equate truth but trying to say everything came from absolutely nothing- you're not going beyond humans cognitive capacities, you're simply breaking logic and claiming the illogical as logical.

 


You claim this makes us understand 'how', as in, 'the first cause explanation'. But as has been pointed out, then the question remains how the first cause was caused etc ad infinitum. You respond calling it 'an eternal cause', which is a nonsensical expression

 

 

How is that nonsensical? Something that exists outside time and is eternal would not require an initial cause because it had no beginning.
Why does there have to be a divinely ordered 'why'? For many people there has to be divine 'why', because their lives are miserable, and a divine (imaginary) purpose is the only factor which gives their life (imaginary) value. But isn't all value imaginary anyway? Maybe.. It's such a huge burden to have to create your own value in life I guess. A bearded man in the sky can be a safe cop out.

 

 

Maybe you missed what I've said numerous times but I'll repeat myself once more- I'm not a religious person, I don't agree with religions though I do find some of it fascinating. My assumption of the existence of an external cause outside the physical universe has nothing to do with a search for a safety net in life.. in complete honesty it would be a bit of a peace of mind to know everything is purposeless and when you die it's lights out for good, but when trying to be completely unbiased with myself the evidence of everything I've learned leads me to believe in something being the intentional cause of all this. The funny thing too is when I used to consider myself an atheists years ago one of my bigger personal arguments was an argument from emotion of 'how could god allow such bad stuff to happen' which later I came to realize how ignorant that argument really is.

Er, we do have an explanation. We don't have a reason but an explanation, yes. It's just you don't seem to like it for reasons you've made quite clear and therefore choose to disregard it. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it invalid.

 

 

Which explanation, the one of something coming from nothing?

 

 

What you are in effect saying is "all things with complexity and which I personally believe have purpose must be a product of design, unless they're the designer in which case they don't need to follow that rule".

 

 

You are completely misrepresenting what I'm saying.. I'm not sure if you're doing that on purpose or..?
Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

 

Yes, I will settle for Pantheism :^:

V0bJEFU.gif

From Here>>

But pantheists don't believe in an afterlife, of which I do... But I've not got much more to say, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself... But I do think the natural forces behind evolution/creation are intelligent...

Thinking about it, I'm going to go for Theism... I'm just going to settle for Christianity :^: I feel much happier being a Christian. :colgate:

 

And as for you El Diablo....

 

I can say whatever the hell I want, thanks. And there was no need for your #@*&%! input....

 

 

I do believe in a high power... Just looking at the complexity of things in our word, galaxy and universe.... and to say it all happened by chance and pure luck is laughable. :lol:

 

 

If it means so little to you that you only "settle for it", why not settle for the observable and material world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying.. A complex mechanism that has purpose is the product of design, a computer for example is a machine composed of several parts which as a whole works together for a unified purpose which is to process information. Nature could never build a computer no matter how much time given nor an infinite amount of materials needed to do so because it simply lacks the capability to do so.

 

What's your point? You're comparing something artificial with something natural.

 

This explains nothing.. why would several invisible laws even come into existence in the first place out of nothing?

 

WE call them laws. They are "invisible" because we can't see them in action, only usually their consequences. You can't see the wind, but it still exists, because we have other ways of measuring it. And saying it came out of nothing just shows your bias. We have a theory about where everything came from, and its slowly coming into shape as we discover more about the universe. Far, far more useful than "god did it".

 

Alter the strength of the weak or strong nuclear force just a fraction and physical matter is incapable of existence. So many laws of physics are in place and working in coordination simply to allow for existence. It is widely agreed upon that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of matter and life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

That is a proposition that states we're pretty much lucky to even exist in this universe. And they weren't dimed in. That's how this universe came to be. There wasn't someone manipulating things to get them just right, or if he had the power to do so he'd have done a far better job.

 

Sure I suppose if the only idea of god you're capable of imagining is the christian god portrayed on family guy then I could understand but personally I would have a hard time imagining god being anything like in human form, the mental image that comes to mind is something more.. abstract (not sure if that'd be the right word) along the lines of being non-physical. Something that exists outside time and the enormous universe is just some kind of project to it and life is just something that exists to appreciate it. Of course all this is unprovable I just think the view of god being some bearded man in the atmosphere is a very limited understanding of what many see it as.

 

You're wrong. Of course I'm not only capable of imagining a sh*tty god in that way. That's the problem. I can imagine the kind of being that would be necessary, and the god that would be capable of everything you say it is, is simply impossible to exist in reality, as there would certainly be evidence of it. And it's a view that is still useless to humankind as it doesn't further our cause in any way, shape or form, in fact it causes the opposite. Therefore you can't use the "god did it" excuse. If you want to go more in depth, see here and here. Actually, do read them, and refute them. You'll have to if you want your hypothesis of a god to hold water.

 

This has nothing to do with what we don't know and entirely to do with what we do know based off observation. We know nature doesn't create complex machines with unified purposes, through observation nature tends to create chaos and disorder.

 

Because purpose isn't something that is intrinsic. Purpose is created by the machine/person who gives it a purpose. Humans don't have an absolute purpose, dogs don't have an absolute purpose. We, with our minds, give them purpose. Try harder.

 

This is ridiculous lol if anything atheism is a minority among the world even still well into the 21st century. Of course majority belief doesn't automatically equate truth but trying to say everything came from absolutely nothing- you're not going beyond humans cognitive capacities, you're simply breaking logic and claiming the illogical as logical.

 

It is a minority because until recently, you would get murdered in 70% of the world if you were an atheist. Now people are slowly opening their eyes and the number of atheists tend to rise. We are claiming things came to be after extremely long periods of times and through mutations, which we can prove. You claim a mystical being that has absolute power built everything. Who is claiming the illogical as logical? Try harder.

 

 

How is that nonsensical? Something that exists outside time and is eternal would not require an initial cause because it had no beginning.

 

Because everything must have a beginning. Since according to you anything that is complex needs a creator, then a complex creator will also need a creator. So you either admit that complex things can exist without a creator, or you admit your creator must have been created and so on and on. Which is it?

 

Maybe you missed what I've said numerous times but I'll repeat myself once more- I'm not a religious person, I don't agree with religions though I do find some of it fascinating. My assumption of the existence of an external cause outside the physical universe has nothing to do with a search for a safety net in life.. in complete honesty it would be a bit of a peace of mind to know everything is purposeless and when you die it's lights out for good, but when trying to be completely unbiased with myself the evidence of everything I've learned leads me to believe in something being the intentional cause of all this. The funny thing too is when I used to consider myself an atheists years ago one of my bigger personal arguments was an argument from emotion of 'how could god allow such bad stuff to happen' which later I came to realize how ignorant that argument really is.

 

You keep using the word evidence. I do not think it means what you think it means. So I'll give you peace of mind: everything is purposeless, when you die you simply cease to be. There's no evidence of anything to the contrary.

 

Which explanation, the one of something coming from nothing?

 

It is actually far beyond that, but since you just ignore proper scientific research, I'll skip it.

 

QUOTE:

What you are in effect saying is "all things with complexity and which I personally believe have purpose must be a product of design, unless they're the designer in which case they don't need to follow that rule".

 

You are completely misrepresenting what I'm saying.. I'm not sure if you're doing that on purpose or..?

 

Hypocrisy much? Your point all this time relied on "it's complex, therefore it must have a creator" every time we talked about evolution and randomness. I mean, look at the very first quote on this reply.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.