So because I have shown you that your evidence fails all of this necessarily follows?

Fail. Ad hominem.

Could you reasonably show me how you arrive at these personal conclusions about me from what has been written?

That is a rhetorical question. I know you cannot, because I know your conclusions are false. I also know why, but to pursue that direction has been fruitless in past, so there seems little hope for me to try again.

You haven't done any such thing. All you did was go off on a tangent talking about Mediterranean mythologies and religion.



It wasn't personal at all. It was a direct response to precisely what you posted.

Why do you always claim personal foul when people address precisely what you actaully say?

If you don't want to bring silly mythological religions into the discussion then don't do it.

Sky wrote:



Your claim is that if I do not consider that I am the creator of this universe then I am presupposing that I am not?

Hmmmm...

Is age a consideration in this?

Hmmm......

"what we can know"...

Very intersting use of the first person plural. But that's another argument altogether.

Now really, all you've said there is that any reason must be a logical reason. And you seem to have set yourself up as the one who determines what is logical and what is not.

Now I don't have a problem with that personally. Everyone does it.

But you have to admit that such a setup makes it all but impossible to show you something logical if all you have to do to make it illogical is to say that it's not logical.

And that is exactly why different things seem logical to different people.

And it is also why not everyone agrees with your logic - or you with theirs.

So again, it all depends on what one is willing to accept as "a logical reason".

And as I said before, I consider the simple fact of it's existence to be logical reason enough to conclude that it was (or is being) designed.

No it has not. Have anything other than your opinion to support this? Give one reputable peer-reviewed source. We are at a limit to our pursuit in knowledge regarding QM. The universe consists of more than just quarks.



If I study hydrogen intensely without ever knowing of water, would I ever be able to conclude that hydrogen can exist in a non-explosive state? What is true of water is not necessarily true of it's constituents - hydrogen and oxygen. What is true of hydrogen and oxygen is not necessarily true of water. What is true of the universe as a whole is not necessarily true of QM. What is true of quarks is not necessarily true of electrons.



Poor logic.



Yeah... So were all of the other false proofs in past...



So how do you go from proven to be unknowable to 'spirit' equals scientific knowledge? How is that any more logical than Santa equals scientific knowledge.

Without logical consistency I will not continue with you.

Sky wrote:



Logic can be reasonably shown.

I am proven wrong. It pleases me to no end.

Only if you consider that you're not the creator.

But "being shown" does not equate to "seeing what is shown".

One can "show it" till one is blue in the face. But if it is not "seen", then it is all for naught.

The factor of "agreement" is absolutely critical.

The rules of logic, the premises, the logical connections (differentiation, association, identification), and the conclusions, must all be agreed on before it can be considered to have been "seen". If any one of those is not agreed upon, then the whole process fails.

To say that there is no evidence of a designer is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. To ask for this evidence is like a drowning man asking for a glass of water. It is simply absurd.

It is like a blind man asking for proof of what is on the horizon. He is blind and he is asking someone to 'show' him something that requires him to have sight.

"I can't see. I can't see. I can't see any evidence."

..because your eyes are closed, your mind is closed.

How could one be so dumb to ask for evidence...

I tell ya, the nerve of some people.

It is self evident that I AM.

If you don't KNOW, then you require 'evidence.'

But if you really want evidence, you have to learn to see it.

Consider I'm not or presuppose I am despite the fact that it is over 4 billion years older than I am?

What evidence suggests otherwise?

Do you have anything more than your opinion to the contrary?



You're ignorance of modern science is not my concern. I have absolutely no need to 'prove' anything against your superfluous assertions. (you'll see what I mean by the end of this post)



I don't. That wasn't my claim.

I was addressing precisely your following assertion:



There are logical reasons to attribute the existence of the universe to things other than we can know. In fact, this is indeed the current state of affairs today.



I don't deny that. I'm talking in terms of the current state of affairs today. If new science and data comes along I'll be more than willing to consider it.

Until then I'm more concerned with what we believe to know today.

Sounds to me like you're the one who's doing the wishful thinking that things might change in the future to support your ideas better.



How rude.

I humor your conversations even though I see no logic in anything you say.

Actually that's just as well with me anyway. I don't see where you have anything new to offer that I haven't already considered.

You seem to be taking that stance that happenstance should be the automatic conclusion until we have evidence to the contrary.

First off, I feel that we do have evidence to the contrary in quantum physics as well as in pure mathematics. But I'm not interested in attempting to share that information with someone who is hostile to the that view. Why should I waste my time on a hostile audience?

But I would like to point out the following:

The idea that we should openly accept happenstance as the default explanation doesn't follow from pure mathematics.

The universe as a whole is only 14 billion years old. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. That's way too short of a timespan for life to have evolved purely by random chance based on pure mathematics.

So where's the "logic" in assuming happenstance as the cause?

It would take monkeys a period of time longer than the expected entire lifespace of the whole universe just to randomly type out Hamlet. But you're asking me to believe that humans evolved in a mere 4.5 billion years?

Where's the "evidence" to support why such an accelerated unnatural happenstance event should have occurred?

This is the problem with most atheistic arguments. The atheists come out of the gate claiming that their arguments should be the 'default' whilst claiming that their opponent must show evidence.

That's baloney right there.

You'd have to show reasons why happenstance should defy mathematics. In the meantime we should assume a default of "design" since it makes more mathematical sense in the time frame alloted for evolution.

There is no valid scientific explanation for the rapid evolution of humans on this earth. Someone was probably tampering with our genes, cross breeding us with their own DNA etc. (Probably alien scientists.)

Plus, millions of people have been abducted and messed with. Sexual experiments, women being impregnated and their babies taken from them etc. They are still trying to design a new race of beings.

The world is full of designers. Designs and designers are everywhere. There are no accidents. The law of cause and effect itself is a design.

Well if the evidence you see, combined with the logic you believe necessary, leads you to the conclusion that you can't be the creator of the universe, then fine, you conclude that you're not the creator of the universe.

Just realize that not everyone necessarily sees the same evidence as you or arrives at the same conclusions as you.

Jeannie saidThat's a very good point Jeannie.

It would mean that it is impossible to prove the existence of a creator, since such a creator would necessarily have to be independent of cause-and-effect and thus any proof.

Proving the existence of "a creator" is not the subject of this thread. It is the existence of "a designer" that we are talking about. I don't know about you, but for me, there is a difference.

A soul creator, like a God, is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about "intelligent design" throughout the entire world is clearly evident. Most certainly within the human race as we design our societies, and our homes, and our machines and our art, and cars, and all manner of other inventions.

Intelligent design is evident in the building of a termite mound. It is built in such a way that it provides air conditioning for the inhabitants. You might say that a termite is not intelligent. Well if an individual termite is not 'intelligent' then where does the intelligence come from that provides the programming for the hive to work together to build such an amazing structure? It is from the group mind.

There is no single 'creator." There is a conscious intelligence at work in the body of the whole that moves through the universal mind.

But evidence of intelligent design is everywhere. There are many designers, and they derive their information from the source of intelligence available to all. That is via the spirit and the universal mind. If a person can tap the universal mind, they can access any knowledge and information they want. (I know a guy who has learned to do this, or claims to.)

As a matter of fact, I do.

The first thing to recognize is that you are the one who is making an unsupported assertion. I asked for evidence of a designer of this universe. Give me something other than your opinion as evidence and I will address it as such, until then, it is your unsupported claim, and the burden of proof is on you to show why it is a logical or reasonable thing to think. Opinion is not evidence.

Your argument has this form...

Quantum mechanics' observations have shown a limit to what we can know about the universe.

That's your given evidence.


First fact to consider... The universe consists of more than just quarks.

Second fact to consider... What is true of a whole is not necessarily true of the individual elements which constitute the whole, and vice-versa.

The necessary logical conclusion... What is true of quarks is not necessarily true of the universe as a whole, and vice-versa.



Here is a little more to develop the above logical truth just in case in remains unclear at this point.

What is true of hydrogen alone is not necessarily true of hydrogen and some other element combined - hydrogen and oxygen. Water is not explosive in any state, yet it is entirely made up from highly explosive elements. Therefore, we must conclude that what is true of a whole is not necessarily true of the individual elements which constitute that whole, and vice-versa. What is true of hydrogen and oxygen is not necessarily true of water. What is true of water is not necessarily true of hydrogen and oxygen.

What is true of the universe as a whole is not necessarily true of QM. What is true of QM is not necessarily true of the universe as a whole. To believe otherwise is illogical, and I have just shown exactly why.




Fail. Ad hominem. Red herring. Neither of our existing ignorances are in question. Those are irrelevant to what is being discussed and do not, in any way, increase understanding of the topic being discussed.




Not in terms of being designed, and that is what is being discussed right now, is it not? I have always maintained that we cannot know the 'nature' of this universe, although my reasons for saying so differ from yours. I even said that earlier in this thread.



I am telling you that QM does not equate to the whole universe. Throughout our history, the belief in 'God' evolved along with our knowledge, sometimes slower than others... unfortunately so. You argument is a repeat of the 'God' of the gaps. QM says we cannot know any more than we already do regarding the smallest known consituents of the universe, therefore a designer exists?





Fail. Ad hominem.

Interesting way to put things considering the progression of this conversation.




Awww... how nice of you!



Interesting... can you quote me on that?

To the untrained eye the following almost makes sense, and it is the reason I decided to respond here, by the way.




Bullsh*t! Who says it's too short a time? You? what about the overwhelming majority of scientists who actually figure out such things? I hope the following is not meant to be your proof for the above. Evolution is not random.



Monkeys which are not evolving! That is very relevant piece left out of that non-existent equation, now is it not? Not to mention the fact that even if evolution is proven false is does not follow that this universe has a designer.



Most this... most that... overgeneralizations are invalid/illogical.



Did you have a valid argument here?

be easier to catch a fart and paint it then prove a grand designer exists..
personaly i prefer to think that god is a figment of human imagination created out of fear of the unknown

quantum physics rock...



i think therefore i am god
i am the creator of thought
i contol the atoms of my brain by thinking hence i control my universe