More semantic flip flops.

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?

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.

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.

Abracadabra wrote:

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.

Abracadabra wrote:

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.

Abracadabra wrote:

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.

Again, there is no evidence to prove "happensstance" is not the answer.

Creative wroteNeither is there evidence to prove that 'design' in not the answer.

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?

Check and mate. Nobody can prove anything.

Abracadabra wrote:

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!

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 wroteNeither is there evidence to prove that 'design' in not the answer.

Well, it's not what would be expected from a happenstance event. So from that point of view it flies in the face of any conjecture that the universe might be happenstance.

There's no need to even claim that it signifies anything about intelligent design at that point. Just recognizing that it flies in the face of what would be expected from happenstance should be enough to place extremely questionmarks on the conjecture that the unvierse is happenstance.

So from that point of view alone, not only doesn't support the conjecture of happenstance, but it actually flies in the face of what we'd expect to see if it were happenstance.

Now, taking that further, should this imply intelligent design? Well, I don't know about that. The only thing I do know is that if life is going to evolve via molecular DNA in a universe it would be absolutely imperitive that the number of different kinds of atoms be small. So if there was a designer it makes sense the designer would also know this. Large numbers of random atoms in a soup aren't going to come together to forum anything that could become a digital computer like DNA. There would be too much 'noise' in the cosmic soup. To much clutter. To many things would get in the way.

So is this compatible with happenstance? No.

Is this compatible with design? Yes.

Why don't we just keep tabs?



I don't think in terms of what's right or wrong. I'm willing to accept whatever is truth.

I just don't see where there is any indication of happenstance at all. None of the numbers add up to happenstance.

I've been thinking about this a very long time. No goals in mind. I've considered a pure happenstance existence in many ways and it's never added up. Happenstance not a viable explanation. And by that I simply mean that it doesn't even 'fit' the data as an explanation. If it did, then I'd accept it. But it doesn't.



Well I must confess that patheism, and more recently some thing I've learned from studying shamanism, have made me look at consciousness in a whole new light.

One thing I've come to realize is that if there is an intelligence behind this universe, then we are it. From my point of view, that's given. After all we are this universe, there is no getting around that.



Well, I don't know what you personally require for 'proof'.

I've decided to take the approach of Sherlock Holmes. Rule out whatever can be ruled out, and whatever is left must be the answer.

Well, taking that approach I can see why happenstance must be ruled out. Even if I accept the 'universal' happenstance conjection, it still doesn't fit within this universe. Life evolved too quickly on planet Earth. Almost instantly, just as soon as condistions are ripe. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Life is believed to have started somewhere between 3.5 and 3.85 billion years ago. Plus the Earth was molten rock when it was first formed. So by the time the Earth cooled down, and life began there wasn't much of a gap. Life took root on Planet Earth instantly for all intents and purposes. Once again that's not something that fit in with what would be expected from pure happenstance.




Who cares?

I'm not attempting to explain 'why' we exist, but rather how we got started.

Besides I ask you this,...

What's the difference between asking, "Who made the intelligent designer?, and "Where did the quantum field that created happenstance life come from??

What's the difference?

Unexplained happenstance, is just as big of a mystery as unexplained intelligence.

Nothing is lost, nothing is gained, either way.

I'm just looking for TRUTH. Whatever it might be.

All I'm saying is that two things appear to be true from my perspective.

1. We are this universe.

2. This universe is not happenstance.

Whatever conclusions you want to draw from those is your choice.

Of course I take it even further and recognize that this universe is not even the 'physical entity' that we had first thought. It's actually a vibrational illusion brought into existence by some mysterious non-physical field that appearently contains very well-organized INFORMATION.

Is information intelligence?

Where does the quantum 'information' come from?

We could just shug our shoulders and say, "Eh, it's probably just happenstance".

Or we can recognize that it's something more than that and see where that leads. So that's the road that I take.

Well that's what I said way back in the beginning.

This nonsense of assuming happenstance until there exist proof otherwise is nonsense.

The burden of proof is on all conjectures no matter what they are claiming to conclude.

I also don't claim to have proof of design. I just share that there exists evidence that points in that direction whilst there is no evidence pointing to happenstance.

That's my stance.

Sky,

Your misquoting me. I did not write that. You can check yourself.

Checked and verified. You're right. My bad.

It's corrected.

Thanks for supplying the correct source Dragoness.

random chance

How is that an argument from ignorance.

You’ve conveniently excluded the known – “all designs with known cause have order” (or “all order with known cause is designed” – either way, take your pick).

That is where it starts.

Check and mate. Nobody can prove anything.

Sky wrote:



I pick both, because the universe does not fill the requirements necessary for the conclusion of either one. Besides that both are generalizations and false. All that is required for a generalization to be proven false is one example to the contrary.

1.)All design with known cause has order.

This is untrue. There are loads of artistic designs which show no signs of order. The design is there. The cause is there. There is no order.

The statement is false.

2.)All order with known cause is designed.

This is untrue as well. As I said earlier, I can take five pennies and drop them on the ground. Eventually they will land in an orderly fashion. The order is there. The known cause is there. It was not designed.

The statement is false.

The two do not logically equate anyway. So you are attempting to base the conclusion that the universe is a design on faulty reasoning. Here is a simple demonstration very much like what you are attempting to do, which shows why this is the case.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

The above takes the first premise and uses it correctly, resulting in a sound argument. The next reflects all arguments for design.

All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man.

This one is fallacious. Although it seems to be a valid form, it is not. It does not make the necessary connection between all mortal things being a man. This can be shown be replacing 'Socrates' with 'cow'.

All men are mortal. A cow is mortal. A cow is a man.

Your presupposing that all order equates to design, and all design equates to order. Add to that the fact that both of those arguments(even if they were valid) depend upon knowing the cause. We do not know the cause of the universe.