100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Creative is always asking for a syllogism So here's one. Logic tells that when asking whether or not the universe is happenstance it's necessarily turtles all the way down. We can never possibly get to the bottom of things because even if we found a bottom-most 'structure' to point to and say, "That's the cause of everything", then we'd still be stuck with asking if that structure itself is "happenstance". If the answer is yes, then we have no answer, and no answer means it's illogical. That's what illogical means; (that which has no explanation) That's what makes something illogical in the first place. So to even assume that we could ever discover a logical answer that does not include an intelligent designer is by its very nature an illogical assumption. Now, you might be tempted to say that if we actually found an intelligent designer we'd be in the same boat, because then we'd have to ask how the designer came to be. But that's a fallacy. The reason being that if we find an intelligent designer our sense of logic no longer applies. The designer defies our very sense of logic, and thus the designer would offer a different explanation which would make no sense to our current idea of logic. Therefore logic itself tells us that we can never explain the universe via logic alone and the only 'logical' explanation that could ever be had would be through the discovery of an intelligent designer who can explain things beyond our sense of logic. Thus if we want to cling to the idea of logic having any merit at all, we must conclude that there necessarily has to be an intelligent designer. Either that, or we may as well toss our very idea of 'logic' right out the door because it has no legs of it own to stand on. So logic itself demands that any logical answer can only exist via an explanation that goes beyond happenstance. Happenstance is not a logical explanation. Happenstance is the converse of logic. Logic, by it's very definition suggests cause and effect. If you ever get to an effect that had no cause, then by that very definition such an effect is necessarily 'illogical'. So to even postulate 'no designer' is the same as postulating an 'illogical' universe. Thus that very postulate is an illogical postulate and flies in the very face of the very definition of logic itself. To postulate a designer does not fly in the face of logic, because in that case, the designer would hold the key to the all-important 'explanation' which logic requires to even be a meaningful concept. "No designer" equates to "logic is meaningless". The only thing that can save 'logic' is a designer. Nothing else will do. So to make the claim that there is no designer is the very same thing as stating that logic has no value. You lose twice taking that stance. You lose purpose, and you lose logic. You end up with nothing. It's silly to even talk about 'logic' outside of intelligent design. Logic would be an utterly meaningless concept in that context. Logic has no meaning in a happenstance universe. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 11/10/09 10:04 PM
|
|
A designer isn't turtles all the way down? How?
Honestly the only explanation that isn't turtles down ad infintum is the idea that when a universe expands from singularity and symmetry is broken its necessitated that the fundamental properties fall into line with what we see. ie no failed multi universes, no designers needing explanation or further designers to design the designers designer. Occums razor makes me consider this explanation with great interest, but again, the only honest conclusion is that we do not know. Not that its obvious . . . I think we all know who is honest in these threads . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 11/10/09 10:19 PM
|
|
Abracadabra:
That is not a logical syllogism. The following is also not science or logic... So the laws of quantum mechanics can indeed be viewed as the preexisting mind of "god". And whoever mentioned gods? It's the INFORMATION that exists. How you label it is utterly irrelevant. 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. The first thing we need to recognize is the conclusions of the human genome project. They conclude that all life on earth came from a single cell. Everything on earth is ultimately related and can be traced back to a single cell. That's ultiamtely what are brains are. Thus if we are said to be our brains, then we too must be this mysterious quantum field. That's a non-physical concept that gives rise to all that's physical. This is what science has discovered. We don't have any evidence at all that suggests that infinitely other universes exist, so to assume that would but just as absurd as assuming a designer. ...evolution started to quickly on planet earth to have been happenstance The scientific knowledge that we already have of this universe supports the idea that this universe is driven by intelligently designed forces. Also the hypothesis of happenstance just doesn't hold up under close scrutiny when all the evidence is considered. Those are just the hard core facts. Smash an atom all apart and it will quickly put itself right back together again precisely the way it was before it was smashed apart. We have absolutely no clue how or why that can be. That is DESIGN. Here's the scientific proof: This universe has been "created" (quite literally "created", if we are to accept the scientific hypothesis of Inflation Theory). And of course that is science not religion! Those are quickly taken from only the first 9 pages... Who is misrepresenting things here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 11/10/09 10:36 PM
|
|
Creative is always asking for a syllogism So here's one. Logic tells that when asking whether or not the universe is happenstance it's necessarily turtles all the way down. We can never possibly get to the bottom of things because even if we found a bottom-most 'structure' to point to and say, "That's the cause of everything", then we'd still be stuck with asking if that structure itself is "happenstance". If the answer is yes, then we have no answer, and no answer means it's illogical. That's what illogical means; (that which has no explanation) That's what makes something illogical in the first place. So to even assume that we could ever discover a logical answer that does not include an intelligent designer is by its very nature an illogical assumption. Now, you might be tempted to say that if we actually found an intelligent designer we'd be in the same boat, because then we'd have to ask how the designer came to be. But that's a fallacy. The reason being that if we find an intelligent designer our sense of logic no longer applies. The designer defies our very sense of logic, and thus the designer would offer a different explanation which would make no sense to our current idea of logic. Therefore logic itself tells us that we can never explain the universe via logic alone and the only 'logical' explanation that could ever be had would be through the discovery of an intelligent designer who can explain things beyond our sense of logic. Thus if we want to cling to the idea of logic having any merit at all, we must conclude that there necessarily has to be an intelligent designer. Either that, or we may as well toss our very idea of 'logic' right out the door because it has no legs of it own to stand on. So logic itself demands that any logical answer can only exist via an explanation that goes beyond happenstance. Happenstance is not a logical explanation. Happenstance is the converse of logic. Logic, by it's very definition suggests cause and effect. If you ever get to an effect that had no cause, then by that very definition such an effect is necessarily 'illogical'. So to even postulate 'no designer' is the same as postulating an 'illogical' universe. Thus that very postulate is an illogical postulate and flies in the very face of the very definition of logic itself. To postulate a designer does not fly in the face of logic, because in that case, the designer would hold the key to the all-important 'explanation' which logic requires to even be a meaningful concept. "No designer" equates to "logic is meaningless". The only thing that can save 'logic' is a designer. Nothing else will do. So to make the claim that there is no designer is the very same thing as stating that logic has no value. You lose twice taking that stance. You lose purpose, and you lose logic. You end up with nothing. It's silly to even talk about 'logic' outside of intelligent design. Logic would be an utterly meaningless concept in that context. Logic has no meaning in a happenstance universe Delusion. Meaningless drivel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delusion Is this one of those "senseless arguments" that neeeds to be sifted through? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 11/10/09 10:36 PM
|
|
A designer isn't turtles all the way down? How? Because as soon as a designer is reached, our notion of logic stops. The designer would then have an "explanation" that goes beyond what we normally consider to be logical. Honestly the only explanation that isn't turtles down ad infintum is the idea that when a universe expands from singularity and symmetry is broken its necessitated that the fundamental properties fall into line with what we see. But that's not 'logical' by the very definition of 'logic'. The only thing that even makes anything 'logical' is an 'explanation' that follows a chain of events where every link of the chain is understood. The idea of a 'singularity' is nothing more than a fancy word for "merlin". The very idea of a singluarity "doing something" is already an illogical idea. So all you're doing is starting out with an illogical idea and claiming that logic follows from that. ie no failed multi universes, no designers needing explanation or further designers to design the designers designer. That's because you have no "explanation", all you have is the pretense of an explanation. You started with a 'magical' singularity that was just as 'unexplained' as an intelligent designer. Just because it's not 'intelligent' doesn't exclude it from a need for an explanation. Occums razor makes me consider this explanation with great interest, but again, the only honest conclusion is that we do not know. Occam's Razor doesn't apply because a singularity is not an "explanation", it's just a pretense that the buck stops there. Not that its obvious . . . I think we all know who is honest in these threads . . . Well, it's my honest opinion that any premise that states that the universe began as a happenstance event that has no "explanation" has automatically tossed 'logic' out the window. Because to accept any "unexplained" first cause, defies what 'logic' even means. Logic only applies to that which can be explained. If it can't be explained, it's considered to be illogical by the very definition of what logic even means. Therefore a universe that has no intelligent designer who can explain things beyond our notions of logic, is an illogical universe by definition. So logic would be utterly meaningless within any such universe. Therefore, it's illogical to even attempt to "logically" consider a universe that wasn't created by an intelligent designer because such a universe would necessarily be "illogical" by the very definition of what logic even means. So if the universe is a mere happenstance event from some singularity, then it's also illogical by definition. Thus any attempt to hold logic out as having any intrinsic value would be futile. Either there exists an intelligent designer, or there isn't any sense in even mentioning 'logic' because such a notion would be utterly meaningless in a happenstance universe. A happenstance universe is illogical by it's very nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The scientific evidence for design is overwhelming. That has already been shown. The only refutation given comes from the fact that the evidence can't be extrapolated outside of the box. Evidence which looks to you like it must be a design does not equate to a design. That has been clearly shown. I feel like I am arguing with a religious fundamentalist who cannot see beyond his own faith-based belief. I feel the same way you do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delusion Is this one of those "senseless arguments" that neeeds to be sifted through? What needs to be sifted? A happenstance universe is illogical by it's very definition. All that means is that it has no logical explanation. So what needs to be sifted? Logic is meaningless in a happenstance universe. Therefore the only logical assumption is that it's by design. Otherwise we just have to accept that logic has no value. I mean, clearly the universe could be happenstance and therefore illogical. But if it is, then it's pointless to hold logic up as a reason for believing that. In short, it's utterly senseless to claim that it's logical to assume that the universe is happenstance. Logic would have no meaning in such a context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A designer isn't turtles all the way down? How? Well, it could be if one decinded that designers need designers. But I don't see that as necessary, so I don't see how "a designer" is turtles all the way down. ... but again, the only honest conclusion is that we do not know. As far a conclusions based on scientific evidence go, yes that is absolutely true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... but again, the only honest conclusion is that we do not know. As far a conclusions based on scientific evidence go, yes that is absolutely true. Well, just for the record that's always been my stance as well. Science, nor logic as we know it, are equipped to address the question. That's always been my bottom line, and this is why I remain agnostic. What I'm arguing against is the false notion that science or logic can be used to favor one idea over the other. If we want to argue from a logical point of view we can only argue for a designer. Because a universe that is happenstance would, by definition, be illogical, and thus logic cannot even be applied to that scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Wed 11/11/09 02:55 AM
|
|
_______________HELP !
____________I'M FALLING DOWN!!!____________ ... Because Abra has pulled my "COMFY" scientific chair from under me!!! I was raised as a real hot blooded atheist -- believing the universe has started with the Big Bang, expands for a while, and then begins to shrink... (and the process is non-stop! Sorry, but God only knows how many Big Bangs have preceded the last one...) Why? "BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY!!!" (Isn't that the most "logical" answer -- smells kinda religious!!!)  *** Another Most "Scientific" explanation I've ever heard was posted on page 42 (?) -- ..there are things we're not supposed to know! But Abra takes the cake by saying: There's a method to every madness -- the universe is designed!!! Imagine that: I've always thought (NOT) an intelligent structure or even life can evolve by itself (from any speck of dust) -- given sufficient time and the appropriate conditions... I never bothered to think about those conditions!!! * * *Oh, sometimes, they just happen(!!!) -- when everything falls into place... usually, by pure ACCIDENT! * * *(i.e. happenstance!) LOL!!!  Little kids usually accept such an explanation -- they do not know any better... But when I've grown up (and learned the rules of reason and logic), I've become puzzled: SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP!!! At the same time, I just couldn't accept the simplistic religious doctrine.. But neither the scientific explanation has ever been full-proof! So, I got stack with the Unified theory: Apparently, the Universe has been given a kick start (ie designed), but afterwards develops on it's own (like a bastard child)... Either that, or the poster has been right all along: ..there are things we're not supposed to know! ++++++ ++++++ +++++++  ++++++ +++++++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB: Do you think ideas themselves just come from transforming the air you breath in or would you say those are created from nothing? Shoku ,  So our bodies are the designs and we are the creator. The creator is the creation.  I don't use the term "creator" because it assumes "something from nothing." I use the term "designer" because it assumes taking what is there and forming it into something else. As an artist sculpting a clay figure, I don't create the figure, I take the clay and transform it into the figure. That is a design. The tendency to design happens sometimes in an unconscious manner. Children savants are a good example. A child that cannot function or communicate with others and who seems to be in a trance, creates a work of art that resembles a work of a master artist. Not only that, she is not even looking at what she is doing, and she is creating it upside down... in relation to her. That stuff lacks a certain depth though. The reason humans "suck at art" when they start out has to do with the way we think symbolically. A stick figure of a horse looks practically nothing like a horse but we can tell it is one. There are many cases of children with some sort of learning disability that have incredible talent or ability that is freakish by normal standards. Children who at a very young age step up to a piano and play like a master composer. Children who can compute better than a calculator... etc. Turns out there are some interesting experiments people have done where they manage to temporarily shut down portions of people's brains and normal people can well enough stop drawing symbols and go to drawing what they see with certain areas blocked out. It's kind of flat art though. For something to have meaning and relevance to our society you need to mix realism with symbolism. (Or substituting other things in place of realism depending also works on the audience.) These are examples of a creative knowledge and intelligence being channeled through a living creature (in this case human) who seems to have no conscious awareness of what they are doing or how. Isn't it kind of nasty to strip creativity away from people saying that it comes from the part of them where their personality and knowledge aren't present? Countless creative designs are created by animals who do it 'naturally' and unconsciously. Like what? My conclusion is that they are channeling this intelligence. In the case of an animal you could say it is "instinct" which is pre-programed in their genes or DNA.. but I don't think this is the case given the example of a child playing piano or doing a work of art that is far in advance of his or her actual age and awareness. So you're saying that we would all progress from infancy in a uniform fashion if not for that intelligence that's everywhere? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If we were all connected to that thing wouldn't we all have the same sort of creativity? What I see is evidence of an intelligence that flows through living creatures and uses them for the "natural" design process. I don't think "instinct" could cause a child to draw and paint like a master far in advance of their own ability. Actually that's growth chemicals and I've already told you several times that the eye spots are "painted" by the genes that grow feet on a caterpillar. I don't think "instinct" directs the design or 'painting' of eyes on the back of a butterfly's wings. Please don't convince me that you aren't listening or never remember anything I say more than just long enough to write a reply to it. That is done while the Caterpillar is encased inside of a cocoon. Some of these designs are the result of evolution over time, and the programming is probably passed on from generation to generation with some variations, but originally, how the design formed is the intelligent designer at work. There isn't an original "eyespot." Each butterfly is a slight alteration of a butterfly that came before it trailing back through other insects, arthropods, precambrian life, and eventually going back to something like a bacteria. With insect wings in general you've got something of a teardrop shape with a bunch of little fibers running along it. I might be remembering this incorrectly but before the wing hardens those act like blood vessels carrying fluids around for growth. Before butterflies other insects already made themselves some color or another to get eaten less often so that's not new. Butterflies moved numerous colors into their wings but it was all there before. As I've said they control the growth of those colors with the same genes they use to decide if cells should be a foot, antennae, or just general body wall. So basically what I'm saying is that calling that a design is the same as if I took a picture from my hallway and stuck it on my bedroom wall and you went praising how fantastic the wall looked. "Surely there's no way a ship could just show up on the wall there!" Well ya, it couldn't. It was printed onto some piece of fabric and my grandfather spent months sewing the colors into it. Although that scenario is still all design I'm comparing it to sudden creation and I hope that you can see how I'm comparing evolution to design with the butterfly thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW that is called supporting my opinion, no argument made, no logic needed, no fallacies, so try again. No. What it's called is totally unwarranted personal slander. You don't even know what an argument is either, I made no argument, so I made no ad homs. I suppose you're right. It was just a totally uncalled for outright personal attack.  It's best not to dwell on the insults for too long and just try to focus on the actual meat of the argument. You make such bold absolute statements about what science says and NEVER back it up with research. THAT is why I said what I said. Most of the things I say should be common knowledge, or be very easily searchable on the Internet for anyone who cares to verify them. I state that there are only about 100 different chemical elements in this entire universe. Oh, about time you modified it. I think most people learn that in High School. I shouldn't need to cite any research papers for that one. You haven't even made the vaguer estimate of 100 billion stars per galaxy and 100 billion galaxies. In case you weren't paying attention in high school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements I state that there are approximately 70 sextillion stars in the observable unvierse. Again, that is easy to verify on Google, Here: 70 sextillion stars doesn't exactly give you anything useful for the designer stuff either. Really the only reason for that number to be what it is is entirely the size of the area they are in. If we could see further the number would be different~ All I did was type into Google "Number of stars in the universe" And it gave me this web page right off the bat: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html But you don't need to trust that site. It's common information that can be found anywhere. This site says there are about 10^21 stars in the unvierse. It fails to qualify that this is only in the observable part. I also had given a more refined number of 70 Sextillion. Which is 70 thousand billion, billion, billion. (about 10^21 stars) So I shouldn't need to cite research to use those commonly known numbers. The only point I was making is that in a universe that has such a vast abundance of atoms, why such a very small number of different kinds? Because at the very start they had to condense of of thick energy and you get almost all 1 proton and 2 proton atoms from that. 3 protons takes more energy input. 4 takes even more and so on. It's as if we're counting and the bigger numbers are harder to make!  But for just a second imagine that you have a jar with 10 marbles in it and another jar that is the same. Let's say you take all the marbles from one jar and glue them together to make a ten marble "atom" and you put it back in the jar. The other jar has ten "atoms" in it but the jar of size 10 "atoms" has only one. Why are there less of those? So unless you really are asking "why does combining ten things into one thing give you fewer than ten things?" and similar counting questions the answer should be as obvious as why mothers don't eat their babies for energy (well now I'm worried so I'll just give the answer to that: there wouldn't be any babies.) This isn't even a scientific question. It can't be answered by science. If you don't count math as a science. Science has no clue why this is the case. It just is. Hearing this is insulting. I told you that clustering more positive charge close together builds up the force that makes atoms split. I told you that adding space in between with neutral particles helps alleviate this but that in order to stick together they require a certain degree of attachment to protons. I told you that we SEE 92 types of atoms because at that point the neutrons fall apart really fast. It's like saying that above 1000 degrees plants catch fire and then you asking why we don't see any plants above that temperature AND SAYING THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE NO CLUE. About about 150 neutrons atoms fall apart. That is why. Science can observe it. But can they "explain it"? No. Strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear force. Look them up. And that's my point. oh hoh hoh. Does happenstance explain it? No. From pure happenstance in a universe this big with over 70 sextillion stars and basically infinitely many atoms for all practical purposes, would we expect to only find 100 different kinds of atoms if they were being created by pure random chance? I'm glad I wrote that one about how you're saying it works your way or it works like your runner up and the rest of us don't even get options. How many times have I told you it's not random chance? I think I've been drilling that idea since I got here except for the one case where I called mutations stochastic. x volume of energy = one proton. y volume of energy = bonding two protons together. If you divide it all by x you get a big number. If you divide it by 2x+y you get a number that's not even half as big. So if you can carry numbers in your head very well you may notice that the 25% helium from the early big bang would mean that it was actually hot enough to make helium a lot of the time rather than just hydrogen. It's 1/4th of the atoms but >2/5ths of the energy. -Now I think I know what you meant to say and for my response to a better query of the "if it's random question" you'd have to be reading what I say to JB and I understand why you wouldn't- this is a lot of text to go through. But even the origin of our universe isn't random chance. Ok, I don't know that for a fact but it is definitely not what I am supporting. I may not know what processes go into creating a universe but that doesn't mean it's 100% blind chance. Sure, you might have universes where the stable atoms count up to 173 or only just 62 but I can't say that those are as likely as our own universe. If it was completely random they would be (and you might even get intelligent life on them,) but maybe it's more like quantum physics and you can only get certain discrete values for a universe. If you don't want to take this seriously and you want to keep saying anything not understood is 100% random fine but there will come a day when we do start to understand and you'll have to reject reality, be dishonest and move your goalposts, or admit mistake. Well no, there's a good chance you'll just die first but the idea you are waving around will die then. That's my question, and I my answer is, no, happenstance doesn't not explain that. Yes. Random chance doesn't explain that. Random chance also doesn't explain how so creator would originate either. If a creator gets to come about by non-random chance why don't we? I'm not claiming that science holds this view. But I do claim that mathematically it is not what we should expect if atoms are indeed happenstance. (This should be obvious to anyone!) Infinitely many blew into existence as only one type of atom. Some of those fused and we got a second and then a third type. What can I say about that? To think that infinitely many atoms just blew into existence from happenstance on only 100 different kinds appear is not what could be called a 'happenstance' event, IMHO. *my understanding is that maybe those other two became "atoms" at the same time as hydrogen. I'm not perfectly clear on the energy densities there. Especially in terms of any attempt to claim that happenstance "explains" this! It doesn't "explain" it at all. On the contary it would be a truly freak happenstance event if it is indeed happenstance. So happenstance most certainly does not quality as an "explanation". Actually no. Look up solar flares and you'll see there's a whole lot of instability. The magnetic fields on stars are all skewompus. ~~~ That's merely the first part of the observation. ~~~ Now we look at what these extremely few atoms just happen to be able to do. They come together to form stars that burn for very long periods of time in a stable arrangement. (Surely I don't need to cite the fact that stars burn stably for billions of years. That's common knowledge) The form plants that happen to circle these stars in nice neat orbits provising long-lasting stable enviroments. (again, do I need to cite the formation of solar systems and planets? Most people already know this stuff) Not randomly though. G-muv + Lambda-muv = 8piG/c^4 *T-muv is how that happens. Very much not random. Then these atoms also form Molecules that can self-program themselves to become highly sophisticated sentient beings. Again no but I'm tired of repeating what I've already said so we'll just continue. (again, do I need to cite DNA and evolution? I think everyone is already aware of this, even if they don't necessarily accept it. It's common knowlege). No, but there are options that are not "random chance" or "designer." Then I ask, from a personal perspective again, "Is happenstance a reaonable explanation for a universe that just happens to be made up of only 100 different kinds of elements, that just happen to be able to produce the environment and molecules that can self-program themselves into conscious thinking beings. Besides all of your arguments are garbage anyway because of the false dichotomy. Shooting down "random chance" doesn't have jack to do with us having an intelligent designer. You don't go arguing that the sky isn't red so it must be green do you? I give my own personal conclusion which is, "No, happenstance does not explain this at all. This is definitely not what we would expect from a mere happenstance event. Show me that you can even read the equations for any of the phenomena we've discussed and maybe I'll give you some credit for that. You're millage may vary. Dragoness doesn't see anything wrong with happenstance explaining this event. Maybe you don't either. But to claim that I've misrepresented science in any way is baloney. Most everything that I've used for this presentation is common High School knowlege. In high school they gloss over all of these things and try to just run students through them so they have the barest familiarity required to get a real education on them or at least not vote like an idiot after experts have explained an issue to them. I shouldn't need to cite any papers for this. It's not even cutting edge information. We've known these facts for quite some time. I knew most of this stuff when I was in highschool back in the 50's. Maybe not the 70 sextillion stars, but most everything else. Plus I new there were a lot of stars even if I didn't have a sexy number to assign them. And the cutting edge is what tells you why the trailing part behind it is how it is.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra wrote:
That's what illogical means; (that which has no explanation) That's what makes something illogical in the first place. Premise #1.) is false. That which has no explanation is unknown, not illogical. Illogical means that which has a senseless explanation, like what follows below. So to even assume that we could ever discover a logical answer that does not include an intelligent designer is by its very nature an illogical assumption. One can get valid answers if one assumes that certain unprovable premises are true. Valid and logically sound are not the same thing. You're lying to yourself here in a desperate attempt to perform semantical gymnastics which justify your belief. You cannot wish away the truth value of logic. You seem to recognize the illogical nature of concluding no designer, why can't you recognize the same with a conclusion of a designer? The have the exact same root problem. We do not have the necessary information required to be able to make that logical progression in thought without assuming things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra wrote:
Now, you might be tempted to say that if we actually found an intelligent designer we'd be in the same boat, because then we'd have to ask how the designer came to be. But that's a fallacy. The reason being that if we find an intelligent designer our sense of logic no longer applies. The designer defies our very sense of logic, and thus the designer would offer a different explanation which would make no sense to our current idea of logic. If we found an intelligent designer using logic, then logic would apply, must still apply. We have not done this, and that is the fact of the matter. The reason(s) why we have not - cannot - done/do this have been explained several times in this thread. This line of thinking looks like a diversion from known logical truth into wishful thinking. Therefore logic itself tells us that we can never explain the universe via logic alone and the only 'logical' explanation that could ever be had would be through the discovery of an intelligent designer who can explain things beyond our sense of logic. Logic tells us that we can only use empirical means to describe teleological/ontological concepts, and that in doing so we must assume some things as true. Namely, that the origin of the universe can somehow be revealed by what we can perceive of it. Claiming that only a designer will fill the void created by our ignorance is laughable. It equates the possibility of the future knowledge of all current unknowns to 'God', or an intelligent designer. Thus if we want to cling to the idea of logic having any merit at all, we must conclude that there necessarily has to be an intelligent designer. Either that, or we may as well toss our very idea of 'logic' right out the door because it has no legs of it own to stand on. So... Logic is meaningless without an intelligent designer. Logic exists. Logic is meaningful. Therefore an intelligent designer exists. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/11/09 09:35 AM
|
|
I said: I don't use the term "creator" because it assumes "something from nothing." I use the term "designer" because it assumes taking what is there and forming it into something else. As an artist sculpting a clay figure, I don't create the figure, I take the clay and transform it into the figure. That is a design. Shoku asked Do you think ideas themselves just come from transforming the air you breath in or would you say those are created from nothing? Apparently we are not talking about "ideas" we are talking about the objective world. OBJECTS. DESIGNS. THE FINISHED PRODUCT. One does not "create" an idea. You also cannot copyright and idea. And an idea not a design. Ideas are a dime a dozen, you have to actually do some work to manifest the design. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one has ever said that evidence which looks like it must be a design equates to a design. I feel the same way you do. Every argument for design does this Sky. The person observes things which s/he call a design, and conclude that because it is a design, there must be a designer. We, as humans, necessarily categorize things for our own need for understanding the world around us. Pointing to something in which we have observed consistency in behaviour and calling such a design is wrongful thinking. We can and often do attribute purpose, reason, and intent to things which do not necessarily have those things. We anthropomorphize things in an attempt to gain understanding. From our point of view it makes sense, however, our point of view is irrelevant for assessing that which lay beyond it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/11/09 10:36 AM
|
|
Shoku said:
Turns out there are some interesting experiments people have done where they manage to temporarily shut down portions of people's brains and normal people can well enough stop drawing symbols and go to drawing what they see with certain areas blocked out. I would like to see some references to these "interesting experiments" do you have a link or the name of the book or paper documenting these? It's kind of flat art though. For something to have meaning and relevance to our society you need to mix realism with symbolism. (Or substituting other things in place of realism depending also works on the audience.) Your Opinion is noted; but here you are expressing your opinion of the alleged 'art' by artists or people who have been 'subjects' in this (alleged) "interesting experiment" where certain areas (of the brain?) have been 'blocked out.' I would like to see the evidence of these experiments AND the art in question to confirm these statements and evaluate this information. I hope you can provide me with more information about this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean:
These are examples of a creative knowledge and intelligence being channeled through a living creature (in this case human) who seems to have no conscious awareness of what they are doing or how. Shoku said" Isn't it kind of nasty to strip creativity away from people saying that it comes from the part of them where their personality and knowledge aren't present? Not really. It is not only 'personality' and 'knowledge' which is lacking, but consciousness. Where a child savant is composing music and there is no evidence that they acquired that 'knowledge' from anywhere, then you must ask the question from where does this 'talent' come from? It is a "malfunction" of the brain? If so, please show me your evidence or study that you referred to. If it is a malfunction, and there is proof, then you are saying that a person may be able to be 'programed' to be a musical composer or artist just by 'blocking out' certain areas of the brain. Some people say that child is "gifted." Right? Gifted by whom or what? Logically, a person cannot be born with knowledge, -- according to traditional science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
       
|
|
|
|
|
