I acknowledge the fact that we have different beliefs.

And If I feel like it, I present further explanation of my beliefs.

And I may attempt a deconstructing of both beliefs in an effort to pinpoint the source of the difference in order to reconcile it.

What do you do?

Well, I was considering the laws to be the product of a creator. In other words, my meaning for “the creator” include the quality of being “the last turtle”, whereas “the laws” require another turtle.

But that’s just my definitions. If yours are different then we need to go back to square one.

Ok, now I understand. (It would help if that type of query were presented in the same direct form instead of the form of "putting words in anothers mouth".)

So I can say that I can’t think of anything that I could perceive or imagine that would not look like a design to me.

And I have to make it clear that the first person plural (“we”) you used does not apply to that. That is, I can say what things look like to me, but not what they look like to others.

One of those other reasons is simply “something that one wants to do”. And “following the rules” is what defines the “doingness” of that particular activity.

Nope. Never said or implied anything even remotely like that.

What I am saying is that as far as I’m concerned, there cannot be anything that God didn’t do on purpose, by the very definition of God.

(Noting that the terms “God” and “designer” are exactly synonymous in this context.)

Well, “meaning” is entirely subjective, so there is no way I can answer that for you. Your life may or may not have meaning to you and it may or may not have meaning to a creator. That’s up to you and the creator to determine, each for themselves.

As far as I’m concerned, whole context of this particular point centers around the concept of “intention to create the universe”. If the creator intended for a universe to be created, it was intentional, regardless of the chain of events that led to the creation. Otherwise it was unintentional.

Ummmm....

"It just happend" is no more proof of "It just happened" than "It was designed" is proof of "It was designed".

Just sayin.

Bushi said
That amounts to something like a few googols [sic] of variables (and growing, if Inflation Theory is correct) to link together in causative relationships.

Well, if one wants to start with an equation like that, I think it is definitely something that would serve to occupy one’s time and provide a virtually endless supply of unknown variables to solve.

But it sure doesn’t seem like a very practical approach to gaining a full understanding of “life, the universe and everything”.

In fact, it virtually guarantees that such a full understanding can never be achieved.

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that up until very recently (the last few decades), the last few centuries of “scientific” investigation have been steadily and purposefully moving toward a position that completely excludes the single most important factor in all of life – the “subjective”.

It is the “subjective” that is the source of all meaning, purpose, value, relevance, quality, significance, usefulness, comparison, importance, evaluation, etc. ad infinitum.

Not only that, but the “subjective” is the source of all the foundations of science itself: logic, math, investigation, comparison, evaluation, differentiation, understanding, knowledge, association, observation, empiricism, etc. ad infinitum.

So it seems extremely curious to me that this thing that is the “source” of all of that, is purposefully and intentionally excluded from all consideration.

I mean, if these tools of “logic” and “science” are so valuable, why aren’t they being used to investigate the single most universally relevant factor in all of existence?

As far as I can tell, the answer to that is “They cannot because they were specifically designed not to.”

Now what’s wrong with this picture?

I'd like to throw "willingness to help others" into the ring as a most prized value.

After thinking about this for a few days, while observing the active threads and contempleting past threads, it seems to me that biggest form of "bullying" is belittleing and/or ridiculing other people and/or their beliefs, for whatever reason.

Just an observation.

Shoku saidWhat is the problem? It seems to me that if that were true, then any conflicting beliefs of any kind would constitute a problem.

Are you saying that any two conflicting beliefs are a problem?

No. One starts from the laws inside the universe, The other starts from a creator outside the universe.

Nope. Never said anything even remotely like that. But since you brought it up, personally I don’t see anything that doesn’t look like either a design or the result of a design to me.

No. Are you saying that “a test of skill” is the only possible reason for playing a game?

I submit that this is solely because of your own inability to take some things seriously or accept a conflicting viewpoint without ridiculing it. Others do not have that problem.

Well first of all, that should be addressed to Creative, not me, since it was his analogy, not mine.

But in any case, there are only three possible options:
1) Intentional cause (designed)
2) Unintentional cause (happenstance)
3) No cause (eternal)

Now at the point in the discussion being referred to, the causeless/eternal option was not being considered, so there were only two options – design or happenstance. And every one of the “options” you suggested above falls into the “happenstance” category.

If he intended to drop the coins, and for the dropping of the coins to result in the establishment of natural laws, then the whole process was by design, regardless of what the result was.

If he didn’t intend to drop the coins, or for the dropping of the coins to result in the establishment of natural laws, then it was happenstance.

So I really don’t see this as “another option”.

Ok, my bad for not presenting in a manner that you could understand.

I agree with this……and it is not significantly different from my intended meaning.

Now do you follow me?

Well, it doesn’t matter to me what you want to call it. You can call it a “frame of reference” and I’ll call it a “reference point”.

So here’s how I evaluate the “absoluteness of a first-person reference point”.

If an observer observes an object from the front and the side, that constitutes two different reference points.

But the observer does not change. It is always the same observer regardless of where it is located relative to the object.

Now if there is no observer, then the whole system is irrelevant/meaningless/useless/valueless. Without an observer, the very concept of “reference point” does not even exist. It is the observer that determines the reference points. That is, the existence of reference points is wholly dependent on the existence of an observer.

And that is why I say that if anything could be considered an absolute, it can only be the first-person (observer) perspective (reference point), because that point is the point to which all other points are relative.

But let me rephrase that slightly, considering the change in context.

If anything could be considered an absolute, it can only be the first-person, because the first-person is what determines the reference points.

Just to clarify: It isn’t the reference point that does the assigning, it is the first-person.

Now it appears to me that, to you, “assignment” is, by definition, the result of a thought process. So rather than go into a long dissertation on that, I will agree – within the current context, as I understand it.

Yeah, warped or "streched" spacetime is a very counter-intuitive concept.

Have you ever seen a movie shot where they move the camerea toward the object and zoom out at the same time? The subject stays the same size in the frame but the background gets smaller, so it looks like the background is moving away from the subject. That's a pretty fair visual representation of what happens.

Singularity? That's mostly a mathematical concept really. It's were the spacetime equations give a result of infinity.

Going back to the BH example, the closer you get to the event horizon, the more "stretched out" space is. And at the event horizon itself, space is streched out to infinity. Which is nonsensical from a human perspective - but not from a mathematical perspective.

One curious thing aboput a sigularity is that it appears to have "size" when looked at from the outside, but the math says it is really just an infinite zero-dimensional point. It doesn't really have any "size" at all from the "inside".

You could actually say that it has an "outside" but no "inside". Or you could also say that the "inside" is infinite. Either way, the concept is nonsensical from a hman experience perspective.

I think that, like any other subject(s), it is necessary to be able to change viewpoints/perspectives. If someone is solidly entranched in any viewpoint, it is difficult to assume a different viewpoint or see things from a different perspective.

And I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing. There must be some reference point for the evaluation of any information. It's only when people start ridculing other viewpoints or insiting that others viewpoints are invalid that it becomes a problem.

The the "curvature of spacetime" is the key to all this.

As you get closer to the EH, space itself is "streched" more and more.

The closer the observer gats to the EH, the more the space between the observer and the EH is "streched". So it seems, from the observer point of view, that the EH never gets any closer.

In other words, "how far away the EH is from the observer", depends on "how close the observer to th EH".

And yes, that seems intuitively paradoxical (or a simplistic identity, take your pick), but it only illustrates the nature of relativity.

"How far away the EH is from the observer" is relative to the EH.

"How close the observer is to the EH" is relative to the observer.

In other words, “the laws inside the universe could be a product of the laws outside the universe”? Well sure, but that’s not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was the laws inside the universe.

Starting from outside the universe just adds another turtle and puts you right back at square one again.

Could be, but I don’t think that’s what it was. However, we’d have to get Redy to verify it either way.

But as to your question (and Redy’s, if that’s what it was), I don’t see any point in trying to address what the designer “should do”. The designer, like anyone else, “should do” whatever it’s own personal “sense of ought” (as Creative would put it) indicates.

One could consider the “game” analogy in the same light…

If you want to put the ball through the hoop, why bother dribbling it and leave yourself open to it being stolen? Why not just hold it tight and cover it like a football, walk down the court, climb a ldder, and push it through the hoop?

So really, addressing what someone “should do” is pretty fruitless unless you are in a position to understand all aspects of the question “why” from the perspective of whomever you think “should” do it.

In other words, you've just argued for the anthropomorphic view of a creator.

I'm not sure I like that definition. It pretty much excludes the concept of a "religious philosophy", which I think is an oversight.

I don't know the "ancient Indian Philosophy", but from what I've read, the Scientology philosophy is about as scientific in it's approach as a philosophy can get. It's just unfortunate that the overwhelming ad hominem attacks on the "religious" aspect of it cause a bias in people the prevent them from actually examining it for what it really is.

First let me say that I acknowledge and respect your belief.

Now as to this statementPersonally, I think the exact opposite. I think "self" is the one-and-only concept that must be true if anything else is to have any meaning or relevance at all.

I just think that the simple fact that we do design things is what makes us designers.

A designer is one who designs.
We design.
Therefore we are designers.

And what is it we design if not (at least part of) the universe?

Therefore, we design the universe.

Pretty simple.

No worries.

It started out as scientific, but around page 40 or so we realized the paradox inherent in that approach, so it switched over to philosophical.

I have started this as an offshoot of the “Evidence of a designer” thread because of the difference in perspective. That other thread addresses only the option of a single designer, whereas I would like to address the option of multiple co-designers.

The universe is composed of matter/energy, which we are able to control.

And evidence also shows that we can control portions of the universe through consciousness alone.

The gross empirical evidence of that is demonstrated in the simple fact that we can control our bodies.

But there is also scientific evidence (PEAR) showing that our control of the functioning of the universe is not restricted to hands-on, physical means. It is possible to affect changes in the physical universe external to our bodies through no known physical means.

Thus, I consider it to be proven that there is design at work in the universe and that the universe cannot be entirely random/happenstance/probabilistic.

<diving into a foxhole to duck and cover>

Ok, here’s the only thing I could find to criticize at all. (You’re just too damn good Redy! )

It mostly has to do with clarifying the “design specification”.

There’s some syntactical mixup there, so it may be that I’m not understanding the intended meaning. But I’ll go ahead anyway and you can disregard this if I misunderstood.

Regarding “the only possible outcome of what pre-existed it”

In the case of a designer, “what preexisted it” refers to the intent of the designer (i.e. the design).

In the case of no-designer, “what preexisted it” refers to just “unknown cause”.

So really, all that seems to come down to is “either their was as designer or the is no known cause”. Which is really just a restatement of the topic of the debate.

But in either case (designer or no designer) the natural processes are inherent in the makeup of the universe.

Which means that the universe cannot be a “product of” natural processes. (That would mean “the laws of the universe are a product of the laws of the universe.)

Well, technically that would be true.

However, it would be the same thing as saying that “lego blocks are the direct result of the lego block factory, therefore the legos themselves are not the design.”

But the legos actually were designed - in the sense that the factory was designed to produce legos with inherent properties that determine how they interact. Those inherent properties determine in what ways the can be “stuck together”.

I really don’t get this one. The position of “designer” includes the premise that the natural universal laws themselves (e.g. the pits and bumps on the legos and how the factory works) were part of the design.

So that just leads right back to square one.

Exactly.

And so I go back to the lego analogy. The design of the factory is such that it produces legos with the inherent properties that determine how they interact – i.e. they only “stick together” in certain ways.