100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I'm bored with this... Be well peoples!  Hey!! You can't quit now!? I just joined in. I was at a chiropractor this morning. He said my joints are all right, it's my tendonds that bother me. We smoked a joint after that.(*) And I paid him $100. --------- (*) This is not true. I don't do drugs other than coffeine. No nicotine, no alcohol. Nothing else, either. Only prescription drugs, and nutrients. Make that "drug-store drugs", not "prescription drugs". I do buy aspirin to dilute my blood, and I do buy Ibuprophane, to stop joint aches. Sorry!! I mean tendon aches! Tendon!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: I am not 'emotionally vested' into any belief system, therefore you must be talking about yourself. My conclusions are based on the weight of the OVERWHELMING evidence that you cannot see. Accusing people of being emotionally vested in their views is his own version of "Ad Hominem"  JB wrote: Where? Please show me where you have 'logically' countered the evidence I presented. You should know by now that this is his standard claim and he's never countered anything, ever. It's easy to claim the following: 1. My hypothesis reigns supreme as the default truth! 2. Any burden of proof is on YOUR hypotheses! 3. You're emotionally invested in your delusion! 4. I'm not emotionally invested in my delusion! 5. I've countered* all your evidence! * "countered" simply means to have rejected it without bothering to even consider it.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/30/09 03:51 PM
|
|
JB wrote: No, the logic goes like this: 1. Design exists. (It is 'design' because it has purpose, and because we say it is. And it is we, the observers, who determine and define what reality and design is.) 2. Designers exist. (We know this because we see them and we see their designs and we see that their designs have purpose.) 3 The Universe IS being designed. (Not "was" designed because there is no past present or future except in the mind. Also IS BEING DESIGNED because in the face of infinity, if it was not constantly being designed, it would have passed away billions of years ago. 4. A design with purpose requires a designer with intent. 5. A designer with intent is intelligent No time... No space... no existence... no beginning... no end... Yet here we are!  This argument goes against so many knowns. It is not even reasonable to consider. It attempts to defines away fact in lieu of personal belief, which supports itself through circular reasoning. Creative, Instead of being sarcastic, and changing the subject, why don't you "logically" address the specific issue I have presented?? 1. What "knowns" does this argument go against? Time? 2. Does design exist? Do we not decide what is design and what is not? 3. Do designers not exist? Do their designs serve or have no purpose or intent? 4. Is not a designer with intent presumed to be intelligent? You like to dance around the argument by changing the subject and making off the wall sarcastic remarks that are nothing more than your opinion. Then you claim to "be bored with all of this" (which is a subject you started) If you can't stand the heat, by all means, get out of the kitchen.  Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes: Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed. With the proper technology, such as a very fast spaceship, one person is able to experience several days while another person simultaneously experiences only a few hours or minutes. The same two people can meet up again, one having experienced days or even years while the other has only experienced minutes. The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness. Einstein could hardly believe there were physicists who didn’t believe in timelessness, and yet the wisdom of Einstein's convictions had very little impact on cosmology or science in general. The majority of physicists have been slow to give up the ordinary assumptions we make about time. The two most highly recognized physicists since Einstein made similar conclusions and even made dramatic advances toward a timeless perspective of the universe, yet they also were unable to change the temporal mentality ingrained in the mainstream of physics and society. Einstein was followed in history by the colorful and brilliant Richard Feynman. Feynman developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics that had yet been developed, known today as Sum over Histories. Just as Einstein's own Relativity Theory led Einstein to reject time, Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space. Feynman’s theory states that the probability of an event is determined by summing together all the possible histories of that event. For example, for a particle moving from point A to B we imagine the particle traveling every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time paths. Each path has an amplitude, and when summed the vast majority of all these amplitudes add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few histories that abide by the laws and forces of nature. Sum over histories indicates the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise. Other worlds are just other directions in space, some less probable, some equally as probable as the one direction we experience. And some times our world represents the unlikely path. Feynman's summing of all possible histories could be described as the first timeless description of a multitude of space-time worlds all existing simultaneously. In a recent paper entitled Cosmology From the Top Down, Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge writes; “Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral.” (below is not in book) Read more: http://www.everythingforever.com/einstein.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This idea came up in another thread, but since the topic of that thread is interesting in and of itself, I wanted to allow for this side discussion's growth - if need be.  I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. You know what the problem here is.....people have a hard time believing all this wonder around us and in us could be an accident..lol That the right elements came together at just the right time to start the evolution of life in general. There has to be a grand purpose to it all. Just living is not adequate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an old sayin, never discuss religion or politics, if tou want to make keep things cordial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/30/09 04:07 PM
|
|
There's an old sayin, never discuss religion or politics, if tou want to make keep things cordial How boring. We don't care about keeping things cordial in here.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: Instead of being sarcastic, and changing the subject, why don't you "logically" address the specific issue I have presented?? What? Actually address a real issue head-on? Surely you jest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an old sayin, never discuss religion or politics, if tou want to make keep things cordial You know as heated as these forums get, most of the time respect still happens here as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/30/09 05:11 PM
|
|
Let’s break this down and look at the necessary requirements. First off, there is “to be shown”. This requires perception (of what is shown). And since the OP has explicitly positioned himself as the object, the process of being shown is dependent on his personal perception. Additionally, according to the OP’s long-standing position, perception is inherently unreliable for determining “actuality”, which means that the actuality of the evidence is indeterminate and thus irrelevant. Being unreliable does not equate to always being wrong. The relevance of the evidence is shown through logical connections between it and what it supposedly supports.And I never referred to “the relevance of the evidence”, I referred to “the relevance of the actuality of the evidence”. Another strawman. Secondly, the evidence must be evaluated. And because of the use of the first person pronoun “I”, the explicit requirement is that the OP must do the evaluation of the evidence. Being shown evidence requires (in this case) someone to present the evidence, that evidence to be assessed (which is completely open for counter-arguments), and a conclusion to be drawn based upon the assessment. So the required process is dependent on the OP’s evaluations. Thirdly, there is “I want”. This requires the fulfillment of a personal desire. And again, because of the first person pronoun, the explicit requirement is that personal desires of the OP (to be shown…) must be fulfilled. So the required process is dependent on the OP’s desire. Finally, there is the complete phrase “I want to be shown”. This requires another entity. That is, there must be one entity that “shows” and another entity that “is shown”. So the required process is dependent on a second entity. Evidence has been given. I have logically countered without response. In those counters, I used the evidence presented which was claimed to support the existence of a designer, to show otherwise. So you’ve assessed the evidence and the claims as being illogical. No argument there. And thus we arrive at the crucial question I have: A valid form of reasoning which supports the conclusion that a designer exists. That form must include evidence which is relevant and necessitates the conclusion. That is what is being asked for. Evidence of a designer must identify the source of the universe, if we are to reasonably call the universe a design. There is no other way to logically/rightfully call this universe a design.“Exactly what is it that is dependent on the second entity?” “valid” “reasoning” “support” “conclusion” “evidence” “relevant” “necessitate” Every single one of those is completely dependent on one or more of the factors I outlined in my deconstruction of the request in the OP. Now I’m going to save both of us the trouble of continuing on that merry-go-round. The bottom line here is that you are asking others to do something for you (“I want …”). But by the very nature of the request, the only thing that anyone can do in response is to “put stuff out there for you to see”. That’s it. That’s all anyone else can do. Everything else must be done by you. You must perceive the information. You must accept as evidence. You must assess the evidence. You must form the conclusions. And probably most importantly you must fulfill your own want. No one can do any of that for you. (Or at the very least, you are not allowing anyone else do any of that for you.) So really, the overall gist of your refutations could be summed up in one sentence “You aren’t doing (or haven’t done) what I want.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. Look in a mirror. If that doesn't convince you then there isn't much sense in even bothering to consider the question any further. Just an observation.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 10/30/09 04:59 PM
|
|
Are the formation of mountains an accident?
Are the patterns of climate across the planet an accident? Is it an accident that planets are round? Plate tectonics and weather science have taught us a lot about these phenomena, no one would posit a purpose when we discuss why its raining here(I would hope), or why that mountain sprouted up there . . . Is it an accident that when sand and rocks wash up on the beach that larger rocks are more likely to wash down into the tide pools then smaller rocks? What does accident mean? I see this as the MAIN opposition to the lack of an intelligent designer. Not much opposition from an objective stand point IMHO, in fact non existent based on definition, so I want to try to understand what it means to you guys . . . I mean is it a true dichotomy? That without a single minded purpose that any thing that happens must be accidental? It seems to me accident implies purpose as a prerequisite? That they are inseparable. So that to be truly objective we must NOT ask if this is an accident, which presupposes purpose. We must instead ask a different question. Why is this phenomena is this way, not what purpose could it serve, or why was it done . . . ect. First we must ask what is happening, the cause, the effect, the mechanics. The difference is frame of perspective. One requires a personal, or first person perspective. The other is objective and third person. Its best to start with an objective analysis, if we presuppose purpose where there is none, we could miss either a) the real cause, or be the real purpose. THAT is why science at its core does not presuppose purpose. If we did, we would be opening ourselves to missing something due to the wrong magnification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are the formation of mountains an accident? Are the patterns of climate across the planet an accident? Is it an accident that when sand and rocks wash up on the beach that larger rocks are more likely to wash down into the tide pools then smaller rocks? What does accident mean? I see this as the MAIN opposition to a non intelligent designer. Not much opposition from an objective stand point IMHO, so I want to try to understand what it means . . . I mean is it a true dichotomy? That without a single minded purpose that any thing that happens must be accidental? It seems to me accident implies purpose as a prerequisite?? So that to be truly objective we must NOT ask if this is an accident. We must instead ask a different question. Why is this phenomena this way, not what purpose could it serve. The difference is frame of perspective. One requires a personal, or first person perspective. The other is objective and third person. Its best to start with an objective analysis, if we presuppose purpose where there is none, we could miss either a) the real cause, or be the real purpose. THAT is why science at its core does not presuppose purpose. I agree with this philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 10/30/09 05:17 PM
|
|
Here is the most common argument given thus far. Designers exist in nature, therefore it is logical to conclude that the universe is designed, and therefore we must conclude that there is a designer of the universe. 1.)Designers exist. 2.)The universe exists. 3.)The universe was designed. 4.)A design requires a designer. In order for this to be a valid form, there must be some direct logical connection that necessitates that 3.) follow from 1.) and 2.), and that has not been shown. First, a couple definitions: “design” - organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; a basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development “induction” – LOGIC: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. So here’s how I see it… 1) A design requires a designer. 2) The universe exhibits the properties of a design 3) Therefore the universe is/was designed. 4) Therefore there is a designer of the universe. I see the step from #2 to #3 as perfectly valid inductive reasoning. Thus, the final conclusion is perfectly logical. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tohyup
on
Fri 10/30/09 05:24 PM
|
|
This idea came up in another thread, but since the topic of that thread is interesting in and of itself, I wanted to allow for this side discussion's growth - if need be. I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. You know what the problem here is.....people have a hard time believing all this wonder around us and in us could be an accident..lol That the right elements came together at just the right time to start the evolution of life in general. There has to be a grand purpose to it all. Just living is not adequate. Even an accident does not just create itself by itself and it needs elements to fulfill its occurrence . Also look to how things follow the same pattern of life aspects . Although humans are not all the same but they all have the same organs, enzymes......etc .  . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This idea came up in another thread, but since the topic of that thread is interesting in and of itself, I wanted to allow for this side discussion's growth - if need be. I want to be shown the evidence of a designer of the universe. You know what the problem here is.....people have a hard time believing all this wonder around us and in us could be an accident..lol That the right elements came together at just the right time to start the evolution of life in general. There has to be a grand purpose to it all. Just living is not adequate. Even an accident does not just create itself by itself and it needs elements to fulfill its occurrence . Also look to how things follow the same pattern of life aspects . Although humans are not all the same but they all have the same organs, enzymes......etc . . Did you read my post? I said people have a hard time believing that the elements all "fell" together at the same time. Which you just proved...lol What if we are all just supposed live this life? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'
Its best to start with an objective analysis, if we presuppose purpose where there is none, we could miss either a) the real cause, or be the real purpose. THAT is why science at its core does not presuppose purpose. If we did, we would be opening ourselves to missing something due to the wrong magnification. Where is all this 'presupposition' coming from? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not presupposing anything. I just look at the facts and see where they lead. When archeologists find bones do they 'presupposed' they came from animals? Yes, they probably do! After all, where else would bones come from? When they find a whole lot of bones and start putting them together, do they presupposed what animal they will form? Well, hopefully not. But in some cases they actually do. None the less, when they start putting all those bone together they start to see the big picture. It produces an animal. And they can tell a lot about the animal by the way its bones and body are built. Just by looking at the structure they can tell whether it's built to be a carnivorous predator or a plant grazing animal. They don't need to make any presupposition to come to these conclusions. So, in a similar way, I look at the evidence of everything we know about the universe. The physics of and theories of the big bang, how the elements were formed in the stars, how the solar system was formed, and how life supposedly got started with molecular DNA. Then I stand back and look at the total cosmic "machine" and ask, "What is this machine designed to do?" This is just like the biologists looking at a dinosaur and asking whether it's a carnivore or a vegetarian. I see that this universe is a machine that is "designed" to build stars, solar systems, planets, and molecules that are designed to evolve into living conscious beings. What was 'presupposed'? Nothing! Not a single solitary thing. It's just an observation of what this machine we call the universe actually does. So where does this idea of "presupposing" anything even come into play?  You expect me to look at this very well-tuned sophisticated machine that we call the universe and accept that it's just happenstance? Why should something that's totally happenstance become such a well-tuned machine that it just accidentally happens to produce everything that is required for molecules to put themselves together in such a way as to build an extremely sophisticated programming language that can be stored in their own structure that will allow them to create living biological bodies that can seek, devour, and obtain energy from tearing apart other molecules and even reproduce themselves in the process? That's quite a bit to ask of random molecules that just came together by happenstance doncha think? They need to do the following all by pure random chance: 1. Accidentally construct sophisticated physical bodies that continually improve themselves. 2. Accidentally be able to seek out, devour, and obtain energy from tearing apart other molecules. 3. Accidentally be able to reproduce themselves with precisely enough precision to guarantee an almost perfect copy, yet allow for just enough error, of just the right amount, to cause them to be able to improve themselves through small errors that just happen to be beneficial. And do all of this over a timespan that is being permitted by a very stable nearby hydrogen bomb that continues to explode every day for billions of years at a very constant level that's just comfy for this accidental process of evolution to occur. This all happened by happenstance? I see no reason whatsoever to believe in such a fairytale. Besides, that's only the tip of the iceberg! Now we have the question of where all this "Stuff" came from that just happens to have everything required for this miraculous event to take place. I'm supposed to believe that it just came from nowhere? For no reason? Just a purely happenstance explosion that just happened to have all the properties required to evolve into conscious beings by pure happenstance? I've already got three unbelievable miracles that I need to place my faith in. 1. The stuff of the universe explodes from nowhere for no reason. 2. The explosion just accidentally forms very long-lived stars and solar systems compatible with nurturing the evolution of molecular life. 3. The very same stars that just accidentally happen to be long-lived and stable enough for providing a stable energy source to the process, just happen to be the very same kitchens that cooked up the atoms that came together to form the molecules that just accidentally happened to evolve into life? Just how many happenstance events do I need to buy into here before I'm allowed to recognize that we've got a well-designed machine on our hands! And there's even MORE! And YES! It's time for Quantum Mechanics children: Let's look more closely at these 'atoms'. Are they truly 'happenstance'? No! They're NOT! They aren't happenstance at all! Where do atoms come from? They come from the quantum field! Their constituent "sub-particles" (quarks, leptons) and the force carriers that control their interactive behavior (bosons) all come from the quantum field. They come out of the quantum field in very precise pre-determined forms! Not happenstance at all! Sure, there is some 'randomness' in precisely which particles will pop out of the quantum field. But there is no randomness in what kind of particles will manifest. The atoms are NOT happenstance at all! They are strictly controlled and "designed" by the innate properties of the quantum field. It's not happenstance at all. It's very predicable and precise! This universe has been brought to you by the Quantum Designer ladies and gentlemen. There's no happenstance about it. It was all predetermined long before the Big Bang ever occurred. Not in precisely how it would unfold in every detail. But certainly in terms of the processes that can unfold within this universe. Stars form, live, and burn for as long as they do because the quantum field says that's they way atoms are going to behave. Planets form and life evolves because the quantum field says that's the way atoms are going to behave. It's all pre-designed in the structure of the atoms. And that structure is dictated by the quantum field. It's not happenstance at all. It's very precise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Concerning the article about time that Jeannie posted of Einstein-
It mentions that Einstein was astonished that some many scientists couldn't grasp the thought that the universe could be timeless. When I think about it myself, I think time only exists for us humans because we know we cannot live forever in this form. Because of that we invented time, yet imagine that if we didn't have this problem of experiencing death. Would we still have invented time or dates? How would this world be for us then? I thought I just add that in there. Just see this as a commercial break. Pass the chips please |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Fri 10/30/09 06:45 PM
|
|
Concerning the question if there is somekind of evidence for a designer?
I wonder if there is a human that actually knows the answer. Maybe that individual knows the answer but made a promise to not exploit it for the human race cannot handle the fact of what designed or created everything. Yes I know my imagination going ballistic again. But you never know with over 6 billion people on the planet just maybe one actually really knows the answer. but again maybe we all know the answer, but made a deal that if we are to live as a species on Earth our memories are washed away to enjoy the challenges we usually don't get as a Super Being, God, master Energy, or whatever the thousands of names a deity has on this planet. Perhaps there truly is no explanation and the best we can get is these Big Bang Theories. It is theories right. There are many different types of Big Bang theories?? One of you guys and gals probably know and can tell me. Let us say we did know what created everything! Could we as a human race handle it or would we self destruct? I mean look at how we are handling the planet without knowing what created everything. Perhaps it is better not to know and be okay with not having this knowledge! Yet I can imagine many cannot settle for this and will be looking and looking and exploring trying to find an answer to what created everything. The smartest philosophers, gurus, scientists, and influential figures also don't have an absolute answer either. In the end it surely is ironic isn't it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When archeologists find bones do they 'presupposed' they came from animals? Only becuase bones have been found inside chopped up living animals? Where have we chopped up universes and found gods? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When archeologists find bones do they 'presupposed' they came from animals? Only becuase bones have been found inside chopped up living animals? Where have we chopped up universes and found gods?
|
|
|
|
|
