100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You have been answered in a rational and calm manner by many people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/01/09 09:59 AM
|
|
You have been answered in a rational and calm manner by many people. And I thank them for their input. (For those who did) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But responding to a direct question by being sarcastic or changing the subject or going off on some tangent about an angry controlling deity IS NOT AN ANSWER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But responding to a direct question by being sarcastic or changing the subject or going off on some tangent about an angry controlling deity IS NOT AN ANSWER. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order for this universe to be happenstance you need to have faith in a whole lot of unprovable imagined things. Like infintiely many failed universes that have never been observed. Why do you keep bringing this up? Infinitely many failed universes that have never been observed. This is one of the failed "proofs" of your theory. This is where you fail to prove your point. There doesn't have to be any failed universes to disprove intelligent design. Intelligent design fails to prove itself. Who designed the designers and who designed that designer....etc... Who created god? Because he/she/it could not appear from nothing just as we could not if the theories for intelligent design are valid. So, who claimed to prove intelligent design? What was shown is that happenstance can't be the answer, without making all sort of extraneous assumptions. If we consider only this universe, happenstance makes no sense at all. So it can't be assumed to be the default explanation as many atheists are attempting to claim. They fail to realize that if they are going to claim happenstance then they need to show evidence for that. But they can't because the very nature and properties of this universe fly in the very face of happenstance. But do you see the problem there? If happenstance can't be the answer then what's left? Think of it this way,... Can we rule out Happenstance? Yes, the evidence clearly shows that this universe cannot be happenstance. Can we rule out Intelligent design? No. Not only does this universe appear to have been intelligently designed, but everything we know about it points to that conclusion. Does this prove Intelligent Design? No. But then who claimed to prove it? All that was asked for is "evidence". The OP asked for "Evidence" not proof! From the OP: I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. Well, that's been done in a myriad of ways. Cosmology points to design rather than happenstance. Quantum physics points to design rather than happenstance. Chemistry points to design rather than happenstance. Pure mathematics points to design rather than happenstance. I also agree with both Sky's and JB's observations. A universe that's filled with designs, and designers implies that the universe was designed and was not just happenstance. So there we have a ton of evidence that points to the conclusion that the universe could not have been happenstance (thus it must have been designed). Where is the evidence for happenstance? There is NONE. In order to postulate that this universe is happenstance we need to ignore what we actually see and go off on extreme tangents of imagining and hypothesizing that a myriad of other failed univeses also exist to explain how this one could be happenstance. So why bother doing that unless there's some reason to have an extreme repulsion for the idea that the universe might have been intelligently designed. And listen to this quote: Creativesoul wrote: Your off the cliff dude, it's a long way down. Your 'God' is dead, let him go in peace. See. A Paranoid Fundamental Atheist who is convinced that "Intelligent Design = God" and is also convinced that such an idea is unrealistic. Yet, that's where all the evidence points to. Happenstance, as an explanation for this unvierse, cannot be supported. It fails as an explaination on the cosmological scale. It fails as an explanation on the quantum scale. And fails to be supported by even mathematics. The mathematical probabilities that this universe have the structure it has by pure "happenstance" is so astronomically small, the only way to even begin to justify that this unvierse is happenstance is to assume that there are nearly an infinity of failed universe and this one just happened to be the one where the conditions just happened to be right. So the bottom line is that there is utterly no evidence to support happenstance, and all evidence points to design. No one said anything about 'proving' anything. All that was asked for was 'evidence'. And that's been given. And now the atheists are taking temper tantrums because they want happenstance to be the 'default' answer (without any supporting evidence) whilst demanding that the 'burden of proof' must be placed on the shoulders of the hypothesis of "design". But all the evidence points to design. An there is no evidence at all that points to happenstance. So are they interested in evidence? Or are they just interested in denial? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not say that order equates to a designer. I said it is logical to assume (if the cause is unknown) that a system containing order was designed. Umm, that is the definition of argument from ignorance. Fallacy.The only ignorance here is ignorance of where the argument is from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not say that order equates to a designer. I said it is logical to assume (if the cause is unknown) that a system containing order was designed. Umm, that is the definition of argument from ignorance. Fallacy.The only ignorance here is ignorance of where the argument is from. Here is your argument. If Cause of order = unknown then it can be assumed it was designed. Your argument is as follows . . Without a known cause we can assume design where an ordered system exists. How is that not an argument from ignorance? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creativesoul wrote: Your off the cliff dude, it's a long way down. Your 'God' is dead, let him go in peace. Abra concluded: See. A Paranoid Fundamental Atheist who is convinced that "Intelligent Design = God" and is also convinced that such an idea is unrealistic.  Your mirror is amazing! A man who recognizes that if the universe is a design, it must have a designer is not paraniod. That post was directly referring to this quote from you which is certainly paranoid, and clearly shows the emotionally vested interst in the conversation at hand. I lean toward the mystical because this is where I see the evidence pointing. Do have a 'desire' for the world to be more than just a random happenstance event? Sure. Who wouldn't? A person would need to truly be empty and devoid of any an all emotion and desire to not care. So I confess to keeping an open mind to the possibilities. I already answered this... remember? creative wrote: I'll show you what I see in this. It is an appeal to emotion. Specifically, this invokes the idea of self-worth by equating happenstance to worthlessness and design to something of value. It jerks the emotional strings using an invalid argumentative form. That form contemplates two ideas for our existence, the big bang and a designer of the universe. Without logical support, you falsely attribute negative qualities to those individuals who do not feel the need to believe that the universe is designed, and therefore we are intelligently designed as well. You equate being designed to having worth, and the contrary to worthlessness. It is wrongful thinking. The claim is that a person who does not have a desire(the same as you) for the universe to have a designer "must be truly empty and devoid of any and all emotion and desire to not care." For the above to be true - in order for one to 'care', they must have the desire to feel as though there is some purpose in life greater than just being a human through evolution. Anyone who does not share this desire, must be emotionally empty. Your equating the existence of emotional content in an individual to the belief in an intelligent designer. That is false. I would venture to bet that you will ignore it again, along with the rest of the counter-arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order for this universe to be happenstance you need to have faith in a whole lot of unprovable imagined things. Like infintiely many failed universes that have never been observed. Why do you keep bringing this up? Infinitely many failed universes that have never been observed. This is one of the failed "proofs" of your theory. This is where you fail to prove your point. There doesn't have to be any failed universes to disprove intelligent design. Intelligent design fails to prove itself. Who designed the designers and who designed that designer....etc... Who created god? Because he/she/it could not appear from nothing just as we could not if the theories for intelligent design are valid. So, who claimed to prove intelligent design? What was shown is that happenstance can't be the answer, without making all sort of extraneous assumptions. If we consider only this universe, happenstance makes no sense at all. So it can't be assumed to be the default explanation as many atheists are attempting to claim. They fail to realize that if they are going to claim happenstance then they need to show evidence for that. But they can't because the very nature and properties of this universe fly in the very face of happenstance. But do you see the problem there? If happenstance can't be the answer then what's left? Think of it this way,... Can we rule out Happenstance? Yes, the evidence clearly shows that this universe cannot be happenstance. Can we rule out Intelligent design? No. Not only does this universe appear to have been intelligently designed, but everything we know about it points to that conclusion. Does this prove Intelligent Design? No. But then who claimed to prove it? All that was asked for is "evidence". The OP asked for "Evidence" not proof! From the OP: I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. Well, that's been done in a myriad of ways. Cosmology points to design rather than happenstance. Quantum physics points to design rather than happenstance. Chemistry points to design rather than happenstance. Pure mathematics points to design rather than happenstance. I also agree with both Sky's and JB's observations. A universe that's filled with designs, and designers implies that the universe was designed and was not just happenstance. So there we have a ton of evidence that points to the conclusion that the universe could not have been happenstance (thus it must have been designed). Where is the evidence for happenstance? There is NONE. In order to postulate that this universe is happenstance we need to ignore what we actually see and go off on extreme tangents of imagining and hypothesizing that a myriad of other failed univeses also exist to explain how this one could be happenstance. So why bother doing that unless there's some reason to have an extreme repulsion for the idea that the universe might have been intelligently designed. And listen to this quote: Creativesoul wrote: Your off the cliff dude, it's a long way down. Your 'God' is dead, let him go in peace. See. A Paranoid Fundamental Atheist who is convinced that "Intelligent Design = God" and is also convinced that such an idea is unrealistic. Yet, that's where all the evidence points to. Happenstance, as an explanation for this unvierse, cannot be supported. It fails as an explaination on the cosmological scale. It fails as an explanation on the quantum scale. And fails to be supported by even mathematics. The mathematical probabilities that this universe have the structure it has by pure "happenstance" is so astronomically small, the only way to even begin to justify that this unvierse is happenstance is to assume that there are nearly an infinity of failed universe and this one just happened to be the one where the conditions just happened to be right. So the bottom line is that there is utterly no evidence to support happenstance, and all evidence points to design. No one said anything about 'proving' anything. All that was asked for was 'evidence'. And that's been given. And now the atheists are taking temper tantrums because they want happenstance to be the 'default' answer (without any supporting evidence) whilst demanding that the 'burden of proof' must be placed on the shoulders of the hypothesis of "design". But all the evidence points to design. An there is no evidence at all that points to happenstance. So are they interested in evidence? Or are they just interested in denial? Again, there is no evidence to prove "happensstance" is not the answer. You pose here as if you have proven facts. You have yet to show them. Mainly because they don't exist. You keep talking in circles. Abra, you know I like you and am not attacking you at any level. You have not proven what you say is obvious to anyone. I know it seems obvious to you but I don't see the obviousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote: Abra, Do not believe your own hype about what you think my emotional state is. Well when you go off the deep-end calling me a liar repeatedly, and claiming that I've fallen off a cliff and my god is dead then I think your emotion state is cystal clear. Either that or you just being radical. If you have some evidence to refute the facts I gave just present it. You know you can't do that because you know very well that everything I presented is indeed the current state of our knowledge. Nothing I said was a lie. You can look up the facts I gave quite easily. These are all quite well-known facts. 1. The are about 70 sextillion stars in the observable universe. 2. There are only about 100 different chemical elements in the universe. 3. When we smash atoms they reconstitute precisely the way they were before they were smashed. 4. The quantum field constains all the information to create this universe, and the atoms in it, plus it has the ability to manifest the physical universe. Therefore the quantum field is a field of both, knowledge, and the ability to manifest that knowledge in physical form. 5. The current scientific theory of the Big Bang is Inflation Theory and it begins with the hypothesis that this universe began as a quantum flucutation thus accepting the fact that this knowledge of how to make specific atoms pre-exists this universe. 6. Even cosomologists confess that in order for this universe to be considered a happenstance event, there must necessarily exist infinitely many other failed and lifeless universes to justify that this one life-giving universe was indeed the one that just happened to work out. Show me where any of this facts are lies, and I'll have grounds to sue several of my teachers and textbook publishers for having misrepresnted what is known by science.  So there's no 'hype' here bud. It's all facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Even cosomologists confess that in order for this universe to be considered a happenstance event, there must necessarily exist infinitely many other failed and lifeless universes to justify that this one life-giving universe was indeed the one that just happened to work out. Quote them. I have seen that posed, but not as a dichotomy. Its but one idea put forward as a hopeful hypothesis, I say hopeful becuase to be even a hypothesis it would need to be testable, and currently is not. I am extremely well read in cosmology. I'll need citations to believe this. I think its more Abra twisting what was said to fit his agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra wrote: Happenstance, as an explanation for this unvierse, cannot be supported. It fails as an explaination on the cosmological scale. It fails as an explanation on the quantum scale. And fails to be supported by even mathematics. This is supposed to be believed?  If this were true, then there would be no possible probability for the life on this planet. There is. It may be small, especially considering the fact that all we can use to determine what that probability is is our given knowledge. The probability exists never-the-less. To attempt to deny that it is possible is again ridiculous. The odds are irrelevant. Someone wins the lottery, no matter how small the odds are. Once life begins the odds are irrelevant. Evolution begins and changes those odds constantly in survival's favor. The mathematical probabilities that this universe have the structure it has by pure "happenstance" is so astronomically small, the only way to even begin to justify that this unvierse is happenstance is to assume that there are nearly an infinity of failed universe and this one just happened to be the one where the conditions just happened to be right. Bullsh*t. Parallel universes have nothing to do with bettering the odds. So the bottom line is that there is utterly no evidence to support happenstance, and all evidence points to design. No one said anything about 'proving' anything. All that was asked for was 'evidence'. And that's been given. Bullsh*t! For this to be true, there would be no chance for the possibility. That chance exists. That is all it takes, no matter how small it is, or you claim it to be. I make that distinction because your claims do not match reality. The universe seems to have order. That is all that has been shown. That is not being denied. How do you get from order to design? That needs to be shown. And now the atheists are taking temper tantrums because they want happenstance to be the 'default' answer (without any supporting evidence) whilst demanding that the 'burden of proof' must be placed on the shoulders of the hypothesis of "design". But all the evidence points to design. An there is no evidence at all that points to happenstance. So are they interested in evidence? Or are they just interested in denial? Is there a valid argument in any of this? Put a logical syllogism where your mouth is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Even cosomologists confess that in order for this universe to be considered a happenstance event, there must necessarily exist infinitely many other failed and lifeless universes to justify that this one life-giving universe was indeed the one that just happened to work out.
This doesn't even make logical sense that it is a "have to" in order for anything to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, there is no evidence to prove "happensstance" is not the answer. You pose here as if you have proven facts. You have yet to show them. Mainly because they don't exist. You keep talking in circles. Abra, you know I like you and am not attacking you at any level. You have not proven what you say is obvious to anyone. I know it seems obvious to you but I don't see the obviousness. I understand that you're not being hostile. I'm not taking your concerns that way at all. I'm not just saying that this is no evidence for "happenstance", I'm actually saying that there is overwhelming evidence against "happenstance". The numbers just don't favor happenstance at all. On the contrary they defy it. A universe that contains an almost infinite number of atoms only contians about 100 different kinds?  That's not what we'd expect from a happenstance explosion. If atoms are happenstance events and there are close to infinitely many of them, we'd expect to see far more than a mere 100 different types. This is extremely crucial idea here, because if atoms aren't the way they are (i.e. extremely few in number in terms of being different kinds) then life would never be possible. A molecule as well-structured as DNA could never evolve in a soup where every atom was randomly different from every other atom. Moreover, as if this observation isn't enough, not only are atoms extremely rare in their 'design' but it's clearly not happenstance. The reason comes from quantum reconstitution. You can't even smash the atoms in this universe and expect something random to 'reappear'. If you smash an atom in this universe it will reconstitute itself precisely the way it was before it was smashed. That's not happenstance. The whole idea of happenstance is all-important. Because if the universe isn't by design, then it necessarily must be happenstance. Yet everwhere we look we don't see any evidence for happenstance. So why should we conclude happenstance when there isn't any evidence for it? And more importantly there is plenty of evidence that this universe isn't happenstance. So what does that tell us? If it's not happenstance, then what is it? I ask you?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 11/01/09 11:29 AM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Perhaps some of you will appreciate this, its not from an atheist, in fact a religious scientist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote: Bullsh*t. Parallel universes have nothing to do with bettering the odds. Well sure it does. Consider this: I give you a die with 100 faces on it marked from 1 to 100. We're going to play a game now. You get to pick a number from 1 to 100. Then you roll the die. If the number that you picked comes up I have to pay you a million dollars. Otherwise you pay me a million dollars. Now, if I tell you that you only get one roll. Would you play the game with me? If so, let me know and I'll be right over!  If not, why not? Don't you think you'll hit your number on the first roll? What if I allow you to have 100 rolls and if your number comes up on any one of those rolls you win. Would you be more apt to play the game? What if I allowed you to roll the die as many times as you like without bound and if your number EVER comes up I'll pay you a million dollars? Would you play then? Does it make a difference how many times you get to roll the die? If so, then why are you trying to suggest that rolling the die infinitely many times doesn't better the odds? It most certainly does! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 11/01/09 11:38 AM
|
|
Again, there is no evidence to prove "happensstance" is not the answer. You pose here as if you have proven facts. You have yet to show them. Mainly because they don't exist. You keep talking in circles. Abra, you know I like you and am not attacking you at any level. You have not proven what you say is obvious to anyone. I know it seems obvious to you but I don't see the obviousness. I understand that you're not being hostile. I'm not taking your concerns that way at all. I'm not just saying that this is no evidence for "happenstance", I'm actually saying that there is overwhelming evidence against "happenstance". The numbers just don't favor happenstance at all. On the contrary they defy it. A universe that contains an almost infinite number of atoms only contians about 100 different kinds? That's not what we'd expect from a happenstance explosion. If atoms are happenstance events and there are close to infinitely many of them, we'd expect to see far more than a mere 100 different types. This is extremely crucial idea here, because if atoms aren't the way they are (i.e. extremely few in number in terms of being different kinds) then life would never be possible. A molecule as well-structured as DNA could never evolve in a soup where every atom was randomly different from every other atom. Moreover, as if this observation isn't enough, not only are atoms extremely rare in their 'design' but it's clearly not happenstance. The reason comes from quantum reconstitution. You can't even smash the atoms in this universe and expect something random to 'reappear'. If you smash an atom in this universe it will reconstitute itself precisely the way it was before it was smashed. That's not happenstance. The whole idea of happenstance is all-important. Because if the universe isn't by design, then it necessarily must be happenstance. Yet everwhere we look we don't see any evidence for happenstance. So why should we conclude happenstance when there isn't any evidence for it? And more importantly there is plenty of evidence that this universe isn't happenstance. So what does that tell us? If it's not happenstance, then what is it? I ask you? Why should it be shocking that there are only about 100 kinds of atoms? This doesn't signify anything about intelligen design to me at all. Abra, I feel that you want the universe to be by intelligent design and you feel that "happenstance" is wrong. I can feel it. I feel nothing about it either way. If intelligent design were to be, I would not be offended or feel put out by it. I just do not see any proof of it. Who made the intelligent designer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Even cosomologists confess that in order for this universe to be considered a happenstance event, there must necessarily exist infinitely many other failed and lifeless universes to justify that this one life-giving universe was indeed the one that just happened to work out. This doesn't even make logical sense that it is a "have to" in order for anything to be. It's a mathematical justification. If this universe is happenstance the probability that it would have been this way by random chance is so small that if it's the only universe in existence the probability that it would have produced the results we see by just "One Roll" would have been just a freak acident that anyone in their right might would consider that even itself to have been miraculous. So to give it mathematical justification we can imagine there being infintiely many rolls. Then we just happen to be living in one that happened to roll out the right numbers. That's the only way that happenstance can be 'justified'. But that's one hell of a stretch, IMHO. All that just to deny design? I guess I'm just not that motivated to deny design. I'm don't find intelligent design to be so repugnant. On the contary, I confess, I think it's extremely interesting. I have no fear of intelligent design. Once accepted it leads to all sort of marvelous other things. That's another thing about happenstance. First you need to bend over backwards to make it work. And then after all your effort you get nothing from it other than life is freak random accident. You have to deny all the evidence for design to conclude that the universe is a freak random accident that came from what? Even if true (which can't even be supported by the evidence) it would be a totally worthless conclusion anyway. I mean, if there were any evidence for it I suppose I'd have no choice but to accept it. But where's there any evidence? There isn't any! You have to bend over backwards, and ignore all the evidence for design, just to place faith in the guess that it might have been happenstance. Why bother? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 11/01/09 12:03 PM
|
|
It is quite ironic how the arguments in favor claim no one is considering the evidence they present, yet they completely avoid getting further into the counter-arguments presented, and instead focus on things not said. That exact same thing is happening with arguments against. Casting of the first stone does not make the caster any better than the victim. One of you... And still you persist with the same strawman that you've been using since the very beginning. Put a logical syllogism where your mouth is. If there is so much evidence which must conclude a designer, or that the universe is a design, it could be shown. Where did anyone (besides you) ever say that the evidence they presented must conclude in a designer? I certainly never did. I don't recall Abra ever doing so either. Nor Jeannie. I specifically stated that inductive reasoning, by definition, cannot result in a "must follow". Yet inductive reasoning is still valid. And this is the point you keep skipping around and never addressing. Personally, I am beginning to think you have some kind of phobia about inductive reasoning. As best I can tell, you seem to have this fixed idea that "inductive reasoning is false because it's not decuctive reasoning." So where is the evidence of anyone saying that their evidence must conclude in a designer? If you can't show that, then arguing that "no evidence has been shown that must result in a designer" is nothing but a strawman. And also, I notice that even the OP did not specify a "must follow". So at the very least, you are second guessing. Sky, Not sure what the "earlier form" you're referring to is, so I can’t say. Are you sticking to the earlier standard form you gave? Should I focus more on that? It seems that you think I do not see the relevance of it. If you know the source of the universe, it is completely relevant to this conversation. Not to me. If you know, you can show. Now there's some fallacious logic if I ever heard it. Can you show an idea? Yes, you can show words and pictures, but the words and pictures are the map, not the territory. Can you demonstrate it? Yes, but it would take a huge amount of requisite education in order for you to correctly interpret the demonstration. Can you demonstrate, to me, the existence of Quantum Foam? It would take several years of very specialized education before I would be able to correctly interpret any such demonstration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/01/09 11:51 AM
|
|
6. Even cosomologists confess that in order for this universe to be considered a happenstance event, there must necessarily exist infinitely many other failed and lifeless universes to justify that this one life-giving universe was indeed the one that just happened to work out. This doesn't even make logical sense that it is a "have to" in order for anything to be. YES IT DOES unless you think that only one accident ever happened and that accident magically manifested an entire universe full of intelligent creatures. The whole idea of evolution is based on the fact that there had to have been many different evolutionary paths and failed attempts before a successful one happened. That it the whole theory about evolution. It is the same with a happenstance universe. It did not just happen the first time. IF it did then logic insists that it had to be ON PURPOSE AND INTENTIONAL. A DESIGN. |
|
|
|
|
