You said proof is a matter of agreement (again). What else is more agreed upon than the creation of the earth and the great flood?
Forget about the Bible, that doesn't matter. I figured I'd show how "agreement" can turn around and bite you on the arse.

At least you agree that proof depends on an individual being able to believe and understand. (understanding is not neccesary imo)

I'd be more than willing to accept any truth as proof if it can be shown. As we stand, evolution has none. There is much more evidence of intelligent design than accidental "happenstance".
Even dating techniques are fallable. All matter is at least as old as the universe according to physics.

And if "we" are the designers, who designed us? Are we "self-realised"?

That sounds like Dr. Seuss

A proof is a proof!
You doof, you doof!
A proof on the roof
is the ultimate truth

Whether you're old
or you're still in your youth
or as drunk as a skunk
on a keg of vermouth

The truth is the truth
and a sleuth is a sleuth
but you'll never find proof
for ideas aloof

A jury could see proof and it go unrecognized as such.

It is still proof. As bogie has been saying with examples, the agreement has nothing to do with the validity or accuracy of the proof.

If you cannot see that, there is nothing more that I want to add.

Let me rephrase that... Macroevolution has none....

A jury could see proof and it go unrecognized as such.

It is still proof. As bogie has been saying with examples, the agreement has nothing to do with the validity or accuracy of the proof.

If you cannot see that, there is nothing more that I want to add.

P.S.

In the case of a trial decided by only one judge, it is only his agreement you need to be concerned with. Again, he must agree. Again, it does not matter what you think, or what anyone else thinks is proof in that case. You must have the agreement of the ones who have the authority to decide.

You are funny.

Do you realize there are such things as mass delusions? Mass hysteria? Mass suicide? Mass agreement does not mean proof and it definitely may not be a good thing.

And in a court case the validity of the proof is decided by several people before the jury and it can be valid evidence and be discarded because of glitch in the law or the method it was aquired, etc...

Ok, so proof exists (or not) regardless of whether anyone sees it or not.

So you say, "The proof exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

You could also say, "Reality exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

And you could also say "The Fying Spaghetti Monster exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So now I will say "The same logic exists in all three statements. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So do we agree?

I don't believe in "mass delusions" etc. I would require proof of that statement.




Several people? That is an agreement. Usually it is decided by the judge.

I agree. That's not even for science to comment on really. It's totally outside the realm of science, IMHO. Although, as I had mentioned in several of my posts, we can see evidence that suggests that something more than happenstance appears to be going on.

Whether that implies an intelligent creator, or something else is hard to say. But if it's something else it would be interesting to know that that something else is.




Well that's true of many scientific theories is it not?

We have Inflation Theory (which grows out of QM and cosmology)

Then we have Loop Quantum Gravity (which grows out of black holes).

That's kind of a joke, but not really.

Then we have String Theory which grows out of human imagination and diverges into infinitely many parallel universe and a bunch of undetected dimensions.

There are others, but these are the top three. I think there's one called "Twister Theory" too by Roger Penrose. I'm not really sure if that qualifies as a "creation theory" like the others I listed, but I've heard it mentioned along side them in the past.

So it's the nature of science to have lots of different theories.

I personally think that both JB and Sky are focusing in more on the anthropic principle, even though they may not be aware of it.

I'm trying to come at it from the other end by ruling out happenstance. So I'm approaching it from a totally different angle than they are.



Well I would agree with that, but the point of it is, that all of the scientific theories I mentioned above are all postulating creation ideas.

Inflation Theory postulates the pre-existence of the quantum field and uses the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a 'boot-strap-loader' for that theory.

Loop Quantum Gravity just assumes infinitely many unvierses eternally. Every black hole within one universe gives rise to another universe, and so on. It doesn't have a 'beginning'.

Sting Theory postulates the existence of parallel "membranes" that bump into each other causing "Big Bangs" of vibration.

So all of these "scientific" theories are dabbling in "speculations".

But most scientists realize that that's precisely what they are (at least at these most speculative remote extremes.

Of course, Inflation Theory holds the most water right now, because we can actually see that the quantum field exists and is not part of this spacetime (at least potentially so). It appears to be giving rise to spacetime. But in fact, we don't even truly know that for sure.

A LOT of science is unproven speculation!

The bottom line that irks me are these yo-yos who try to make out like everything that science says is well-grounded, and that somehow supports a "default conclusion" of a happenstance universe over a designed one. They even use Occam's Razor to try to nail that down. But it's bogus and doesn't apply.

What really TRUE is that science can't say one way or the other. Period.

So these people who try to make out like science somehow supports ahteism (or non-spirituality) over intelligent design, are simple wrong. They are misrepresenting what science truly has to say.



Well, there had to be a "least number of nucleotides" sequence to get the thing started on it's 'program'. And that's what I'm interested in knowing. Where's the threshold between just a meaningless sequence of "dead" DNA, and the actual sequence requried for it to become a 'self-programming' structure?

There's has to be a starting CODE. Once that code takes root, you've got life. Or at least you've got an 'active program' that can build itself into a living molecule anyway.

I know enough about digital programming to know that. And DNA is indeed a digital program. So it has to have a "bootstrap" starting Code sequence. At least one! Potentially more than one. That's a question that I'd love to know the answer to right there. One or many? What does it take? How rare is that bootstrap sequence, and how long is it in terms of nucleotides.

Do you work in biology with DNA?

If what you believe is "proof" is presented to a jury of 12 people and they decide it is not "proof" then they will have out voted you. You can keep your opinions but a lot of good they will do you without agreement.

Agreement has everything to do with deciding the validity of the evidence. One person's opinion is simply NOT ENOUGH.

You can disagree all you want, but as a lawyer, you won't win any cases if you do not convince someone that what you have shown them is valid proof.

They have to agree in order for you to win your case. It does not matter what you think. It does not even matter what anyone else thinks in the case of a trial. It only matters what the jury thinks because they are the ones who must agree and decide.

That's why I decided not to become a lawyer. It would be totally frustrating.

You are funny.

Do you realize there are such things as mass delusions? Mass hysteria? Mass suicide? Mass agreement does not mean proof and it definitely may not be a good thing.

And in a court case the validity of the proof is decided by several people before the jury and it can be valid evidence and be discarded because of glitch in the law or the method it was aquired, etc...

Sky responded:


Ok, so proof exists (or not) regardless of whether anyone sees it or not.

So you say, "The proof exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

You could also say, "Reality exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

And you could also say "The Fying Spaghetti Monster exists. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So now I will say "The same logic exists in all three statements. But if you can't see it then there is nothing more that I want to add."

So do we agree?

Proving a case to a jury could include the same kind of proof that is accepted in science or philosophy, but not necessarily. I understand what you are saying here about this. The thing that needs to be considered is this...

A jury may not recognize the soundness of an argument and therefore not agree with it, does not necessarily mean that proof was not given. People are fallible. Proof in a court of law, and proof in science or philosophy are not necessarily the same thing, and are not necessarily established in the same ways.

Proof itself, does not require agreement to exist, therefore it cannot be just a matter of agreement. It is a matter of relevant and sufficient evidence along with a sound demonstration that leads one to an irrefutable conclusion that the proposition under discussion is true, must be true.

If truth were only a matter of agreement, then all agreements would prove something more than just that an agreement has been established. If you and I agree to call a pineapple an orange, we have an agreement not a proof.

Di saidFrom the viewpoint of my philosophical beliefs, that is not a question that makes sense. The best way I can reply is to say the game is “real life”. That’s the heart of the whole analogy – “life, the universe and everything” is a game. So the question itself asks for an answer to a paradox “Was the game created to mimic the game?” (Or “Was real life created to mimic real life” – whichever way you want to say it.)

But from the way you asked that question (“games” instead of “game”), I’m not entirely sure you weren’t asking about the current computer games on the market. So to answer that, there are many parts of the games that are created to mimic real life as closely as possible. Things like the physics of how objects in the games interact, such a bodies falling in gravity fields, light passing through or reflecting off of materials of varying opaqueness and reflectivity, shadows being cast relative to light sources, and even such things as how different amounts and angles of force affect different materials. All of this falls under the heading of what is called the “Physics Engine”. And physics engines have been getting more and more sophisticated in their mimicking of real life.

Not even close. Try again using my claims rather than an arbitrary sentence which is not a part of the claim.