Without evidence what did you use to get so certain about that stance?

...a couple of years ago my cat didn't come home one day. I don't have any evidence that you took him but if you say you don't abduct cats I'm going to make real sure everyone knows that you might. Just sayin.


In all of those cases we see "creators" taking materials and arranging them into something else. They never "create" anything that wasn't already there.

Ooooh.

Because it's silly but on an arbitrary basis the designer thing somehow isn't. It's ok though, nobody will find out because we're not allowed to question faith even if it calls itself logic or science.

Or at least if we do we're ******** for it.

Nevermind that this requires you to take the persona out of God and allow all of his actions to be random and causeless.

So when the energy density of the universe was too high for atoms do we get to say there was no space time?

Well no. You only get to label it God if it's basically a person. If you were convinced that "flatness" created the universe you couldn't call it God because it's missing all the qualities that makes something a god besides the creator one. If I go hit a cell phone with a hammer I didn't "design" the mess- I'm the reason it's there but there's more to designing something than being what put it there.

Same with being God.

Of course not. We don't believe in Allah.


Well actually there's no evidence here for the simple fact that this argument is an example of the begging the question fallacy.

Oh yes, of course. Being open minded means agreeing with me as soon as I say I've finished describing my position and of course I also agree with me as soon as I'm done so there's no window available for you. If you want anything more before you convert unconditionally to my faith you're some kind of militia up in arms against me and definitely crazy (after all, I must be right because how could I be wrong? How dare anyone think differently than me!)


Why not play along? Surely you've got the patience to just keep listing things until we tire out from explaining them away (as that requires more work.)

4 billion years is enough time for the mutations that have lead to us to pop up and enough time for selective forces to push the forms around to us.

*I take a slight amount of offense when people tell me there's no explanation/evidence as studying it is, oh, my career.

If we accept that how does it show that they had a hand in our origin?


Is there supposed to be a train of logic in that?

Then why are we allowed to act like it's been proven to start off with that cause and effect thing being one of it's acts? Circular logic is nobody's friend.

-

3 pages of stuff is probably pushing the limit of how long I should let posts get. I'll come back to this in a few hours I guess.

And whoever mentioned gods?

You're not one of those paranoid atheists who have a phobia of anything that even remotely suggests that the universe might not be happenstance are you?

Besides, in a very real way we have chopped up the universe and found "gods"!

Our chopping blocks are called "Particle Accelerators"

And the "gods" we found are behaviors that totally defy anything that we can even remotely explain, or comprehend, in any way that seems 'logical' to our puny mortal brains.

So yes, in a very real sense, we have chopped up the universe and found gods. Or at least we've found "Supernatural" (or god-like) behavior.

Finding "god-like" behavior is close enough to finding gods as far as I'm concerned.

We seem "miracles" on the quantum level.

~~~

What about quantum reconstitution?

Take something like our solar system and toss a small star past it. It's going to affect the orbits of all the planets in the solar system. Assuming that it doesn't rip them out of orbit altogether what would we expect to happen? Would we expect that the planets would return to their original orbits in perfect harmony with the way they were before?

No of course not. That would be a miracle!

But atoms do that!

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! Atoms were designed to be a particular way and there is no other way they can be.

There's nothing happenstance about it.

If, to you, that means "gods" are doing it, then you're just confirming that "gods" exist.

All I claimed is that it's NOT happenstance.

But then I guess if it's not happenstance, then there's really no choice left, is there? It must be by design and that implies the "gods".

So I quess you're right after all. There must be gods.

That's rather restrictive. We don't go by that because many of us here are pantheists and in that sense 'god' is not a person. It's a cosmic "consciousness", and even that doesn't imply an ego vantage point.

So we use the term 'god' rather loosely around here to mean a cosmic intelligence and/or spiritual essence that doesn't necessarily carry with it any connotations of ego or personal persona.



Well, again, persona is not required for "god" in this context because this is a pantheistic idea of "god", not a middle eastern or Mediterranean idea.

Secondly, I disagree that the actions of the quantum field are necessarily random or causeless. They only appear to be that way to some degree from "our side" of the quantum veil.

Moreover, there are far more ways in which they are neither random nor causeless.

For example, only certian types of "particles" can come out of the quantum field. So even though they may appear somewhat randomly, they are not necessarily random in terms of precisely what makes an appearance.

In fact the Schrodinger equation shows us that the macro enviroment of this spacetime "side" of things, can indeed have a direct influence (i.e. cause) on what the quantum field will produce (i.e. manifest)

So it's neither random, nor causeless, as you suggest.

The "god-like" qualities are not in the form of a 'persona' but rather in the form of 'supernatural' behavior. (i.e. behavior that does no obey or adhere to any logic or laws of physics are this side of the quantum veil.

So that's all I meant by that.

Besides, if the question is, "Is there design", then all that truly needs to be shown is that "Happenstance doesn't fill the bill".

Any talk about "god" is superfluous.

But "just for the record" we all know that what is truly being done here is here is an attempt to equate "Happenstance = no god", "Design = a need for a god". Where the term "god" simply implies intelligent design (i.e. not happenstance)

This would be like Einstein's God. Not the God of the Bible.

Yes, Abra, they even call it "THE GOD PARTICLE"

Shoku,

I admire your talent with the {quote} and {/quote} in your very long post. Amazing.

I agree with this - but with some additions.

First of all, if you believe that the word "purpose" has any meaning at all (Bushi ), then it must, at least be attributable to "self". ("My purpose in going to the store was to get something to eat.") So it is known that self has purpose.

From there, as Bushi said, we must observe and evaluate the things in our environment without presupposition of purpose. It is only after such observation and evaluation that purpose should be assigned to anything external to ourselves.

So up to this point, I am in total agreement with Bushi.

And now we get to the attribution of purpose.

The basis of this attribution is the evaluation of observed differences, similarities, and identities. So we compare the actions of other entities in our environment against our own. And if there are many similarities and identities, and few differences, it is reasonable to attribute purpose to those other entities.

This is what inductive reasoning is all about.

So now as to “designer of the universe”… (and switching from second/third person to first person)

I look at what I create - computer programs, meals, routes to work, forum posts, and on and on. In all of these there is order, by design and with intent.

And I look at others creations, such as engineers and architects and maids, and politicians (well, maybe not politicians so much) and artists and CEOs and ants and machinists and interior designers and birds and on and on, and I see order in everything they create.

And I look at the actions of all these others and see that it is identical to mine in many respects, particularly in those respects relating to creation, and that where there are differences, those differences are minor or irrelevant. Also many of those others have communicated to me, directly or indirectly, that their creations are purposefully designed to contain order.

Then I look at all creations where the creator is known to me, and I see no instance where there is order but the creator is known to not have intended there to be order. In other words, in all cases where there is order with know cause, that order was the result of purposeful intention.

And then I look at all cases of disorder (or chaos). And in all those cases, there is no know instance where ther was not either 1) no known purposeful intent, or 2) a failed purpose to create order or 3) a purposeful intent to create disorder.

And finally, based on all those observations, I conclude that any creation containing order was purposefully intended to have order.

And I observe that the universe I very orderly, similar to the orderliness I see in all creations where the cause is known.

And that is the inductive logic that leads me to the conclusion that the universe is/was created by design.

actually the bulk of physicists call it the "higgs bosun" and reject the name "god particle" which arose from christians attempting to push "intelligent design".

No it probably arose from the news media.

not unlikely considering the abundance of christian conservatives in the media; hanity, limbaugh, savage, ingram, et al.

I don't think most Christians would take kindly to calling anything the "God Particle" because they have a different concept of God. In fact, I think that name was very unpopular among Christians because it implied that "God" could be figured out and labeled and called "science" debunking all their myths about God.

The lift the leaf off of them and give them a tour in a way they can appreciate.

If people ask for one piece of evidence give them one piece instead of telling them they are too stupid to see it. Most of the time if you ask yourself "if someone said something like this to me would I want to talk to them calmly after?" you can stop yourself from sticking more leaves on us ants.

Actually you did. The evidence of a designer is design. Everything is design.

From this there are two options for what you meant. The first is circular logic but if we assume that we are assuming you are an idiot. So the more polite option is to assume you are pointing to the "designer" we can watch "create" things.

If it's not the butterfly can you show us how you are not using circular logic?

Saying it does not make it so. Sound like something you heard recently? Like a post ago?

WHY should we think it was designed by this god thing and that it permeates everything?
There is another assumption here that we don't want to make: You are saying that we should think like you do because anything you believe is automatically superior to anything different anyone else might believe. Again, that would say very nasty things about you so we choose a more polite option.

So can you help us to understand instead of just demanding that we do?


So are you saying that asking for evidence that logically leads to a conclusion is too much or that what we call leaps of faith should just be called steps?

Look at it from a different angle. If you can show us how one piece of evidence is evidence shouldn't that open our eyes to many pieces of evidence?

And to us you look like you are in a small room somewhere dreaming about the amazing wings of elephants and lamenting our loss for not recognizing that elephants' beauty is n their wings while we work out their trunks and legs and tail.

First: I am not saying that you should 'think like I do.' I am attempting to extract an answer any way I can.

And I did not say that the butterfly created the design... at least not consciously.... it is not conscious enough to do so.



Okay good enough. I will tell you WHY I came to my 'conclusion.'

I have established and discussed the opinions of others (atheists mostly) and we seem to agree that a butterfly (or other animal) is not intelligent enough or conscious enough to create a design with intent and purpose.

Nor do they consciously think about death or propagating their species or passing on their genes. We also seem to agree that they are simply following their instinctual 'programming.'

Now the word 'programming' implies a programmer.

No, it insists on a programmer, so my question was .... Who or what does the programming?

So, the term "programming" or "pre-programming" was scraped (by Lex) and replaced with "inherent pre-condition." (Coined by LexFonteyne)

This discussion is in a thread called: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/253185

I accepted this new term and looked up the meaning of it:
"inherent pre-condition."

inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>

"pre-condition: necessary or required condition; prerequisite


Which of course raises the question HOW did this inherent pre-condition arise?

Lex admitted that he did not know.

Others have answered: "Evolution."

Where the question is:
How does evolution work and what directs (or motivates) a species to evolve?

and the circular logic brings back the answer as:

Survival Instinct."

Therefore we are back where we started.

This "answer" is unacceptable and it is NOT a solution or the answer to the ultimate question. It goes in circles.

1. A butterfly cannot design anything with purpose consciously because it is not conscious or intelligent enough.

2. The design on the butterfly wings is an eyeball complete with a white reflective dot. It deters predators because it looks like the eyes of a large animal.

3. How did this design arise if the butterfly is not responsible?

Answers: Pre-programming, inherent pre-condition, evolution, survival instinct or pure accident.

None of these "answers" require and intelligent designer. Therefore I should be 'satisfied' right???

I'm not.

Not because I WANT there to be a designer, but because these answers do not add up or make sense. They are not complete or logical.

I don't believe the design is an accident. I don't believe the individual butterfly consciously did it.

If it is in the genes or the pre-condition, or the pre-programing, where does that arise from... for that specific individual species?

Each species evolves individually and they are each different from other species therefore at what point in that evolution did the "inherent pre-condition" arise and how did it arise?

My theory is a group mind (for that species) that is intelligent and that directs the evolution of a species. The is the solution that makes sense.

The logica or factual connection between the three bold-type lines is erroneous. You drew the wrong conclusion.

Evolution is NOT driven by a survival instinct. In fact, it is driven by two things: 1. survival and 2. canging of the species in random directions and the one direction that aids* survival will get propagated into future generations.

{(*) not because it is chosen or it is superior, but because the individuals without a particular "winning" direction of change may be less able to survive, and they indeed don't produce offspring.

In fact, there is a HUGE number of differences between members of species, but they are going to be significant only if one or more of these differences will give a distinct advantage for those who have it against those who don't. Some humans can twirl their tongues sideways, some can't; some humans can taste and smell particular tastes and smells, some can't; some humans have sticy earwax, some have the kind that easily peels off and rolls away. These are all evoltutionary differences, that are passed down from parent to offspring, but obviously they're not such that they would make a difference in survival. However, once a microbe that produces deathly poison with its metabolism, and which finds sticky earwax lovely to live in, but not the other kind, then this difference will be a suvival advantage to humans who have non-sticky earwax.}

Survival instinct is part of the characteristics that each living individual has, but it's a characteristic that aided the survival, not propelled it. It is the same type of thing as having multi-cellular bodies, a recognition of the helpfulness of clothing, the necessary enzimes for digesting food, growing hair and the ability to serve knuckle sandwitches.

Survival instinct has no significance in the theory of evolution, other than what any other survival technique that has developed serves.

In fact, the survival techniques develop not due to need, but only through randomly occurring differences between parents and offspring.

This is really tough to get around, but once you do, you'll see why we are so flabbergasted with your defence of the intellgent universe and such things. The part of the universe with living things will make instant sense to you if you wrap your head around how evolution really works.

I am not being condescending. I am 55, very bright, and the product of a high school which taught evolutionary theory only. Yet I only gained complete understanding only around age 50.

This is a very simple concept, evolution; that's why it's so hard to grasp. It is slippery for those who say "I believe in it" (much like I used to be) and misunderstanding it is easy.

In its simplicity lies its own deceptive difficulty to be understood, this Evolutionary theory.

Even if I agreed with you totally and 'wrapped my head around' evolution and how it works.... there are still questions that are not answered.

1.What drives any living thing to evolve and adapt?

2. Why does DNA change and what changes it?

the rub is bean, that you say "I will tell you WHY I came to my 'conclusion" which i assume means you've settled on an acceptable answer. then you end this post saying that "This "answer" is unacceptable and it is NOT a solution or the answer to the ultimate question". i too think that an acceptable answer has not been reached on the issue so i don't understand why i should consider your conclusion/answer as correct. back to the oringinal question. is there one peice of evidence to support the notion of a designer. you still offer only conjecture based on what you interpret to be evidence but have offered no evidence that science considers to be credible. i think that's what the op was referring to when he asked for evidence.

Also, why is it so 'objectionable' for atheists to consider that there might be an unseen intelligence at work in this thing we call existence and life?

In the end it is all science and the truth will be known, so relax and consider all possibilities. Where there are still questions, I still consider the possibility of a unified field that is intelligent and creative. I find no objection to that consideration. I am not claiming that I know this for a fact.

But when I ask the bottom line question and I get the answer: "I don't know." I ask myself ... then what do you imagine?

Some people don't want to go there. And yet imagination is what makes who we are, and separates us from the more unconscious animals.

I have said before, many times that I have not concluded anything. Yet everyone assumes that I have and that I am insisting I am right.

So to feed this delusion, I am trying to explain to them that the current best "conclusion" I have is this and this is why....

Now as for what I meant by what is NOT a solution, I am talking about all of the non-answers I have been getting from you and others. They are incomplete and they are not acceptable because they do not answer the question... how and why.

As long as those question are not answered ..(yes to my own satisfaction) they remain questions.

My conclusions are the "best conclusion" I have come up with so far. I still await more information via answers to the questions I pose.

If anyone can answer the bottom line questions then I am anxious to change my temporary 'conclusions.' But so far I have not seen a reasonable answer.

Abra wrote:



The universe exists.

Particle accelerators exist.

Particles equal the universe.

What is observed in a particle accelerator is equal to supernatural behaviour because we do not understand them.

Supernatural behaviours exist.

God equals supernatural behaviour.

God exists.

Gods are behaviours which are not understood.



In a very real way this is delusional.



Atoms exist.

Our solar system exists.

Atoms and our solar system do not follow the same laws, therefore do not exhibit the same behaviours.

If the solar system acted like an atom, it would be a miracle.

An atom's behaviour is a miracle.



Atoms exist.

An atom exhibits consistent behaviours which we do not completely understand, therefore it is design.

There exists only two conclusions regarding atomic behaviour, either it is happenstance or design.

The cause of the behaviour is equal to the behaviour itself.

Happenstance cannot equal consistency, therefore the atom is designed.

The atom designed itself.

God exists.



Here we go again...

1. A living thing cannot evolve. Even the change between the parent's set of characteristics and the offspring's cannot be called evolution. Nothing drives it by will. To evolve means to have a set of different characteristics by a subset of a species from otherwise similar individuals in the species and which difference makes the owners of this characteristics survive, and the other set, which does not have the characteristic, dies out.

2. DNA changes for the simple reason that it is very complex, and the chemical situation is not always favourable to make an exact duplicate. Maybe a trace element is missing in the "soup", or maybe too many are present. The temperature is different. Whatever.

The DNA chagnes are all chemical, not biolgoical or the slaves of will.

In fact, much more many DNA changes from parent to offspring are happening than evidenced; that is so because there are proteins in the cell liquid when it splits, that destroy forming or formed DNA molecules if they are not compatible with the protein molecule, which "checks" the DNA of the new cell, by fitting itself against the DNA and if certain parts are not a fit, it chemically destroys it, automatically, without a functioning will.