| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2006 08:25:18 AM |
| Object: |
Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
26.
As far as I know, Thomas Aquinas originated the cosmological or first
cause argument for the existence of a designer. Apparently the Bible
wasn't quite enough for him and he had little faith.
It boils down to claiming that everything is caused by something else.
Since nothing can be caused by itself, there must ultimately have been
a first cause, and this designer must have been a being which did not
have a cause, namely a god.
The blind assumption here is that because we see cause and effect in
our everyday lives, we must apply this same "principle" to the
beginning of the universe. There is no rationale for this.
Quantum physics would appear to defy causality. It breaks the "chain"
of prior cause. We don't yet know, of course, everything there is to
know about quantum physics. There may be yet another layer underlying
what we do know (or think we know) that awaits dicovery; however, the
laws of physics in this universe, in which the baggage of "first cause"
is included, came into existence with the inception of the universe.
We don't know what was there "before" the beginning, but if there was
literally nothing in existence, then what was there to prevent
literally anything happening? Answer: literally nothing!
The entire first cause argument is illogical in its very foundation.
If everything must have a prior cause then so, too, must a god. If a
god can exist without a prior cause, then there is no rationale to
excluding an undesigned universe from this option. And if there is no
designer, then there is no design.
More material on this topic can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/b2s5
27. Teleological or design argument
I don't know who originated this argument. Certainly John Ray had
something to say on this topic in "The Wisdom of God Manifested in the
Works of the Creation" published in 1691, but probably its best known
articulation was by the Reverend William Paley, who published "Natural
Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity,
Collected from the Appearances of Nature" three years before he died in
1805.
Paley's argument has not changed even in its modern iterations, which
are as ill-conceived now as was Paley's original. The theme is that we
know immediately if something was designed because it has a number of
parts, each of which fits with others to achieve a common end. In
Paley's argument, the end is that of measuring the passage of time.
Lately authors like Michael Behe have tried to bring this "logic" out
of the nineteenth century by applying it to modern biochemistry with
the same degree of ineptitude that plagued Paley's effort.
The basis of the position is far more simplistic than that: if we know
something is designed, this means it has a designer. Well duhh! The
massive flaw in this approach is that none of the items with which
we're invited to compare natural items is natural! They're all
manufactured and we *know* them to be manufactured. This is how we
know they have a designer. We're then required to draw the conclusion
that the things which we readily recognize as having no human designer
must have a divine designer!
Clearly this is a problem for the argument: one way we know things are
designed is to contrast them with natural objects, but natural objects
are the very things which are under question here!
If we distinguish designed objects by differentiating them from natural
objects, where then is the logic for claiming that natural objects,
too, are designed? Natural objects are natural, period. The only way
we could have a hope of determining if this universe is the result of
design would be (by this method), to compare it with a universe we knew
to be manufactured! If someone can show me such a universe, I'd be
happy to do the comparison.
One of the arguments put forth in an effort to bolster this position is
the supposed functional perfection of natural objects - that they could
not have come to fill their present role unless they had been designed
to do so.
This argument is primarily supported with appeals to consider living
things, but the position merely states what is. It does not address
the means by which living things for example came to fulfil their
"role"! Since hard-working scientists have more than adequately
demonstrated that evolution can "design" living things for roles, the
design argument fails.
And how do we determine what the "purpose" of a natural thing is? If
we determine that a watch is manufactured by the ordered working of
parts to achieve an end, how do we determine what is an ordered working
of parts to achieve an end in a natural object? How do we know the end
for which it was designed without assuming it a priori? Clearly this
argument is a dismal failure. Nature has no apparent purpose. Not
even its blind self-perpetuation is a purpose. It's a result of
chemistry.
Moreover, serious problems can be shown in this argument by referencing
actual living things and demonstrating how the "design" is far from
perfect. That is the purpose of this series of threads.
Those who argue that the design need not be perfect are arguing from a
vacuum. The Bible makes clear that its god is perfect. That its god
had all eternity in which to work. That its god had infinite resources
at its command. That when the work was completed, it was deemed to be
good. What is the rationale for claiming there's a perfect god if the
work of this god is demonstrably imperfect? That the imperfection is
perfectly designed? That it was perfectly designed to be imperfect for
a perfect reason of which we know nothing?
Finally, there is the issue of order - people claim the universe is an
ordered place and that life as we know it could not exist if certain
universal constants were not within a very limited range, but this
argument fails in its assumption that this is the only universe that is
or has ever been.
We don't know if it is the only one, or if it is one of many that exist
right now, or one of a string of many that have existed throughout
time. If there is an infinite number and variety of universes, then
the probability that there is at least one which permits life such as
ours, is 1.
More material on this topic can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
28.
Why would a compassionate, loving designer create a sun? The Bible
makes it clear that he created light before he created the sun, so a
sun was not necessary. This deadly ball of radiation is just 93
million miles from Earth on average.
The sun is a deceitful creation of this perfect designer, because
nothing feels better than a warm sun. People are so addicted to it
that we've created artificial suns to sit under so our skin can glow
golden brown - the same golden brown that was apparently "designed"
into our earliest ancestors and then lost as they migrated northwards.
It feels so good that more than one god has been identified with or
compared to the sun. But over exposure to it will burn your skin and
repeated exposure will cause cancer. It will dry you up and parch you.
It will dry up rivers and lakes and destroy crops.
It is so deadly that if this perfect designer designed it, he designed
it so badly that he then had to design an ozone layer and a magnetic
layer around Earth to protect us from the deadliness of his "perfect"
creation. Go figure.
Yet he also "designed" humans with a desperate need to be exposed to it
in northern climes because it creates vitamin D! So their "designed"
need is to be exposed to something which can cause them harm in order
to generate something which wasn't designed into us with sufficient
robustness. I'll tackle this topic on another occasion.
Idiots will jump blindly in and claim that the sun is necessary to our
survival, but it isn't. Yes, in *reality* it is, but in the mythical
world of the Old Testament it is not. According to Genesis, the god
created light without need for a sun and a plant-watering mist without
the need for rain. Why couldn't we use *that* light and *that* method
of watering crops?
I don't see how there can be a perfect and loving designer that can be
easily shown to be so repeatedly inept at creating things. Unless that
designer doesn't exist and was created with this inevitable ineptitude
by the primitive and unimaginative scribes who invented the fairytales
in Genesis to "explain" away things beyond their control, which they
did not understand.
29.
Plagued by natural disasters, the Earth is one of the worst places to
live. Very little of it is truly habitable in the sense of providing a
safe, comfortable home where abundant food and clean water is
available.
While some of it is truly majestic, this doesn't feed people or keep
them safe. Most of the plants are inedible for humans. Many of them
are downright poisonous. Our entire existence is dependent on a few
permutations of a very limited set of crops and upon animals which are
as prone to disease as we are. None of these conditions has changed
during humanity's lifetime
In addition to this, the Earth is pounded by asteroids from time to
time. This was much worse in the past than in the present, but we are
by no means free of the threat as an earlier thread touched on. This
is a real problem for fundies because they have to explain why these
massive globally-felt impacts from outer space are not recorded
anywhere in the Bible.
Add to this volcanoes and earthquakes, floods and hurricanes and you
would have to wonder why a benign designer would place frail humans in
such a deadly environment. If a parent did this to their children,
they would be arrested and charged with child endangerment, but this
designer gets away with it, leaving believers floundering to explain
why their designer is so inept or so cruel, or so thoughtless.
30.
Why People Stop Listening to God
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/news/releases/05/1_19_05.asp
reveals that a gene has been found which apparently blocks restoration
of the hair cells which in turn make it possible to hear. As we grow
older (and for other reasons) the hairs deteriorate and our hearing
acuity does too. There's no explanation for this if we were "designed"
to lead the long, healthy lives the Bible claims for its earliest
characters.
There's also a gene which, when introduced by a virus, can encourage
new growth:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns
Why would a designer god create such lousy system? And then complain
that we're not listening to him? To adopt the
fundamentalist/creationist/IDiot dichotomy, either this designer is the
worst ever, or there's no designer and the stories were simply
inventions to explain things which were inexplicable to the primitive
scribes who penned the words.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
30 Oct 2006 07:07:35 PM |
|
|
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is? How does chaos
become order? How come chaos ceases and order predominates? Can order
exist without design? If it can, give some examples.
CJ
Budikka666 wrote:
26.
As far as I know, Thomas Aquinas originated the cosmological or first
cause argument for the existence of a designer. Apparently the Bible
wasn't quite enough for him and he had little faith.
It boils down to claiming that everything is caused by something else.
Since nothing can be caused by itself, there must ultimately have been
a first cause, and this designer must have been a being which did not
have a cause, namely a god.
The blind assumption here is that because we see cause and effect in
our everyday lives, we must apply this same "principle" to the
beginning of the universe. There is no rationale for this.
Quantum physics would appear to defy causality. It breaks the "chain"
of prior cause. We don't yet know, of course, everything there is to
know about quantum physics. There may be yet another layer underlying
what we do know (or think we know) that awaits dicovery; however, the
laws of physics in this universe, in which the baggage of "first cause"
is included, came into existence with the inception of the universe.
We don't know what was there "before" the beginning, but if there was
literally nothing in existence, then what was there to prevent
literally anything happening? Answer: literally nothing!
The entire first cause argument is illogical in its very foundation.
If everything must have a prior cause then so, too, must a god. If a
god can exist without a prior cause, then there is no rationale to
excluding an undesigned universe from this option. And if there is no
designer, then there is no design.
More material on this topic can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/b2s5
27. Teleological or design argument
I don't know who originated this argument. Certainly John Ray had
something to say on this topic in "The Wisdom of God Manifested in the
Works of the Creation" published in 1691, but probably its best known
articulation was by the Reverend William Paley, who published "Natural
Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity,
Collected from the Appearances of Nature" three years before he died in
1805.
Paley's argument has not changed even in its modern iterations, which
are as ill-conceived now as was Paley's original. The theme is that we
know immediately if something was designed because it has a number of
parts, each of which fits with others to achieve a common end. In
Paley's argument, the end is that of measuring the passage of time.
Lately authors like Michael Behe have tried to bring this "logic" out
of the nineteenth century by applying it to modern biochemistry with
the same degree of ineptitude that plagued Paley's effort.
The basis of the position is far more simplistic than that: if we know
something is designed, this means it has a designer. Well duhh! The
massive flaw in this approach is that none of the items with which
we're invited to compare natural items is natural! They're all
manufactured and we *know* them to be manufactured. This is how we
know they have a designer. We're then required to draw the conclusion
that the things which we readily recognize as having no human designer
must have a divine designer!
Clearly this is a problem for the argument: one way we know things are
designed is to contrast them with natural objects, but natural objects
are the very things which are under question here!
If we distinguish designed objects by differentiating them from natural
objects, where then is the logic for claiming that natural objects,
too, are designed? Natural objects are natural, period. The only way
we could have a hope of determining if this universe is the result of
design would be (by this method), to compare it with a universe we knew
to be manufactured! If someone can show me such a universe, I'd be
happy to do the comparison.
One of the arguments put forth in an effort to bolster this position is
the supposed functional perfection of natural objects - that they could
not have come to fill their present role unless they had been designed
to do so.
This argument is primarily supported with appeals to consider living
things, but the position merely states what is. It does not address
the means by which living things for example came to fulfil their
"role"! Since hard-working scientists have more than adequately
demonstrated that evolution can "design" living things for roles, the
design argument fails.
And how do we determine what the "purpose" of a natural thing is? If
we determine that a watch is manufactured by the ordered working of
parts to achieve an end, how do we determine what is an ordered working
of parts to achieve an end in a natural object? How do we know the end
for which it was designed without assuming it a priori? Clearly this
argument is a dismal failure. Nature has no apparent purpose. Not
even its blind self-perpetuation is a purpose. It's a result of
chemistry.
Moreover, serious problems can be shown in this argument by referencing
actual living things and demonstrating how the "design" is far from
perfect. That is the purpose of this series of threads.
Those who argue that the design need not be perfect are arguing from a
vacuum. The Bible makes clear that its god is perfect. That its god
had all eternity in which to work. That its god had infinite resources
at its command. That when the work was completed, it was deemed to be
good. What is the rationale for claiming there's a perfect god if the
work of this god is demonstrably imperfect? That the imperfection is
perfectly designed? That it was perfectly designed to be imperfect for
a perfect reason of which we know nothing?
Finally, there is the issue of order - people claim the universe is an
ordered place and that life as we know it could not exist if certain
universal constants were not within a very limited range, but this
argument fails in its assumption that this is the only universe that is
or has ever been.
We don't know if it is the only one, or if it is one of many that exist
right now, or one of a string of many that have existed throughout
time. If there is an infinite number and variety of universes, then
the probability that there is at least one which permits life such as
ours, is 1.
More material on this topic can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
28.
Why would a compassionate, loving designer create a sun? The Bible
makes it clear that he created light before he created the sun, so a
sun was not necessary. This deadly ball of radiation is just 93
million miles from Earth on average.
The sun is a deceitful creation of this perfect designer, because
nothing feels better than a warm sun. People are so addicted to it
that we've created artificial suns to sit under so our skin can glow
golden brown - the same golden brown that was apparently "designed"
into our earliest ancestors and then lost as they migrated northwards.
It feels so good that more than one god has been identified with or
compared to the sun. But over exposure to it will burn your skin and
repeated exposure will cause cancer. It will dry you up and parch you.
It will dry up rivers and lakes and destroy crops.
It is so deadly that if this perfect designer designed it, he designed
it so badly that he then had to design an ozone layer and a magnetic
layer around Earth to protect us from the deadliness of his "perfect"
creation. Go figure.
Yet he also "designed" humans with a desperate need to be exposed to it
in northern climes because it creates vitamin D! So their "designed"
need is to be exposed to something which can cause them harm in order
to generate something which wasn't designed into us with sufficient
robustness. I'll tackle this topic on another occasion.
Idiots will jump blindly in and claim that the sun is necessary to our
survival, but it isn't. Yes, in *reality* it is, but in the mythical
world of the Old Testament it is not. According to Genesis, the god
created light without need for a sun and a plant-watering mist without
the need for rain. Why couldn't we use *that* light and *that* method
of watering crops?
I don't see how there can be a perfect and loving designer that can be
easily shown to be so repeatedly inept at creating things. Unless that
designer doesn't exist and was created with this inevitable ineptitude
by the primitive and unimaginative scribes who invented the fairytales
in Genesis to "explain" away things beyond their control, which they
did not understand.
29.
Plagued by natural disasters, the Earth is one of the worst places to
live. Very little of it is truly habitable in the sense of providing a
safe, comfortable home where abundant food and clean water is
available.
While some of it is truly majestic, this doesn't feed people or keep
them safe. Most of the plants are inedible for humans. Many of them
are downright poisonous. Our entire existence is dependent on a few
permutations of a very limited set of crops and upon animals which are
as prone to disease as we are. None of these conditions has changed
during humanity's lifetime
In addition to this, the Earth is pounded by asteroids from time to
time. This was much worse in the past than in the present, but we are
by no means free of the threat as an earlier thread touched on. This
is a real problem for fundies because they have to explain why these
massive globally-felt impacts from outer space are not recorded
anywhere in the Bible.
Add to this volcanoes and earthquakes, floods and hurricanes and you
would have to wonder why a benign designer would place frail humans in
such a deadly environment. If a parent did this to their children,
they would be arrested and charged with child endangerment, but this
designer gets away with it, leaving believers floundering to explain
why their designer is so inept or so cruel, or so thoughtless.
30.
Why People Stop Listening to God
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/news/releases/05/1_19_05.asp
reveals that a gene has been found which apparently blocks restoration
of the hair cells which in turn make it possible to hear. As we grow
older (and for other reasons) the hairs deteriorate and our hearing
acuity does too. There's no explanation for this if we were "designed"
to lead the long, healthy lives the Bible claims for its earliest
characters.
There's also a gene which, when introduced by a virus, can encourage
new growth:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns
Why would a designer god create such lousy system? And then complain
that we're not listening to him? To adopt the
fundamentalist/creationist/IDiot dichotomy, either this designer is the
worst ever, or there's no designer and the stories were simply
inventions to explain things which were inexplicable to the primitive
scribes who penned the words.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
01 Nov 2006 05:57:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
Can order
exist without design? If it can, give some examples.
This universe.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
02 Nov 2006 03:41:10 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
Can order
exist without design? If it can, give some examples.
This universe.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "P. Perez" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
02 Nov 2006 05:10:07 PM |
|
|
<curtjester1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162503670.722403.290030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
Your GOD of the gaps?
Can order
exist without design? If it can, give some examples.
This universe.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "P. Perez" |
|
| Title: Re: P. Perez, Young Sexy Babe Fucking With Dirty Old Man |
04 Nov 2006 12:00:17 AM |
|
|
P. Perez <PPerez@gmail.com> wrote:
Gaping give-and-take-girl with nauseating flaming lips and worthless
globelets wants putrescent mayonnaise cannon for sordid *****-drinking.
Mail me at <PPerez@gmail.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
03 Nov 2006 04:42:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)
Note the word "if" in your statement.
--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
We don't know at this point. But whereas theists paradoxically claim
ignorance is knowledge: "we don't know therefore godidit", scientists
actually investigate. It really is that simple. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the intellectual wherewithal to grasp something so
simple.
But the plain fact is, as I've stated many times, if there was quite
literally nothing before this universe began, then what, exactly, was
there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer:
quite literally nothing.
You are so buried in this universe that you cannot get your mind
outside of it. That's something you need to work on before you try to
waste any more of my time.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
03 Nov 2006 12:16:40 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)
Note the word "if" in your statement.
--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
We don't know at this point. But whereas theists paradoxically claim
ignorance is knowledge: "we don't know therefore godidit", scientists
actually investigate. It really is that simple. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the intellectual wherewithal to grasp something so
simple.
The paradox is back at you. Since there was something and nothing as
you implied, now that something cannot be a designer. It 'has' to be
something else, or atheism falls flat on it's face. It can only be a
viable theory if nothing existed before anything existed.
Theists probably assume it is enough to show that order exists in a
complex fashion, and attribute it to something that they can't conceive
as being any other alternative. Naturalists believe that everything
has to be proven by a laboratory, but already know it's impossible. Of
course the downfall is that they think that if isn't, then it isn't
true...which well to many is sad.
But the plain fact is, as I've stated many times, if there was quite
literally nothing before this universe began, then what, exactly, was
there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer:
quite literally nothing.
I am sorry I am not your follower to know you have stated that many
times. Sounds like your trying to play 'Who's On First', but the fact
is there had to be something logically for something to happen. And
since there is a scientific formula that proofs that, then there was
something before the Universe or anything started. It then doesn't
have to be a given either that the Universe was the first action that
ever happened
You are so buried in this universe that you cannot get your mind
outside of it. That's something you need to work on before you try to
waste any more of my time.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be. Most
people would attribute real blind luck or a controller. Can you find
spontaneous events now from beyond or from earth that don't already
have order, that cause order to come about?
If I am wasting your time, then you don't have to answer, instead of
acting foolishly with a childish remark like that.
Budikka
CJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
03 Nov 2006 03:54:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)
Note the word "if" in your statement.
--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
We don't know at this point. But whereas theists paradoxically claim
ignorance is knowledge: "we don't know therefore godidit", scientists
actually investigate. It really is that simple. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the intellectual wherewithal to grasp something so
simple.
The paradox is back at you. Since there was something and nothing as
you implied,
First mistake. I didn't *imply* anything. In fact, just the opposite.
I specificly said we don't know.
now that something cannot be a designer.
Unsupported assertion. Here we go again. If it was actually nothing
at all, it cannot be a designer, but again, we don't know what was
there, so it's quite fatuous to be making assertions as you do here.
It 'has' to be
something else, or atheism falls flat on it's face.
Quite wrong. Suppose it was some alien kid in another unvierse doing a
kitchen experiment that yielded this universe? That leaves atheism
squarely in place without having a designer in any meaningful sense.
It can only be a
viable theory if nothing existed before anything existed.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
Theists probably assume it is enough to show that order exists in a
complex fashion, and attribute it to something that they can't conceive
as being any other alternative.
In which case they fail because if something specific and complex (such
as this unvierse) has to have a designer, then so too, did the designer
of this universe. If the designer could have existed without being
designed, then the "chain of logic" breaks, and so, too, could the
universe exist without a designer.
Naturalists believe that everything
has to be proven by a laboratory,
No. Wrong again.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
Of
course the downfall is that they think that if isn't, then it isn't
true...which well to many is sad.
But the plain fact is, as I've stated many times, if there was quite
literally nothing before this universe began, then what, exactly, was
there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer:
quite literally nothing.
I am sorry I am not your follower to know you have stated that many
times.
I'm glad you're not my follower. I don't want people who fail to think
to be on my side. But regarding the remark, I stated it in so many
words in the opening message of this thread, so now we have a de facto
admission from you that you're blathering blindly on about this topic
without having read and digested the genesis of it. Why is this not a
surprise?
Sounds like your trying to play 'Who's On First', but the fact
is there had to be something logically for something to happen.
If this is the best level you can reach, I'm not going to waste any
more time on you. You need to seriously get outside the box and
*think*. You need to think outside this universe or you're wasting
even your own time.
And
since there is a scientific formula that proofs that,
No there is not. You cannot apply the laws of physics that were born
with *this* universe to what may or may not have existed *prior* to
this unvierse. It really is that simple.
then there was
something before the Universe or anything started. It then doesn't
have to be a given either that the Universe was the first action that
ever happened
You are so buried in this universe that you cannot get your mind
outside of it. That's something you need to work on before you try to
waste any more of my time.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Most
people would attribute real blind luck or a controller.
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Can you find
spontaneous events now from beyond or from earth that don't already
have order, that cause order to come about?
Actually there are some in the universe, but that's not at issue. Your
problem is that you're still bogged down in **THIS** universe. What
you apparently are unable to grasp is that before this universe
existed, this universe did not exist, and neither did the laws of
physics which are tied to it and to which your thinking is hopelessly
enslaved.
If I am wasting your time, then you don't have to answer, instead of
acting foolishly with a childish remark like that.
The child is you. You cannot get your thinking straight and until you
do, there is no point in pursuing this.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 10:08:41 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)
Note the word "if" in your statement.
--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
We don't know at this point. But whereas theists paradoxically claim
ignorance is knowledge: "we don't know therefore godidit", scientists
actually investigate. It really is that simple. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the intellectual wherewithal to grasp something so
simple.
The paradox is back at you. Since there was something and nothing as
you implied,
First mistake. I didn't *imply* anything. In fact, just the opposite.
I specificly said we don't know.
now that something cannot be a designer.
Unsupported assertion. Here we go again. If it was actually nothing
at all, it cannot be a designer, but again, we don't know what was
there, so it's quite fatuous to be making assertions as you do here.
But the assertion is made in the title of the thread.
It 'has' to be
something else, or atheism falls flat on it's face.
Quite wrong. Suppose it was some alien kid in another unvierse doing a
kitchen experiment that yielded this universe? That leaves atheism
squarely in place without having a designer in any meaningful sense.
Well the alien would still be godlike to this environment. Of course
one couldn't run from the fact that a godlike being could create the
aliens of that planet. Atheism on it's own definition says a god
cannot exist. Never can be proved. It's always a assertively wrong
theory from it's definition.
It can only be a
viable theory if nothing existed before anything existed.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy. It even has the root of theory in the word base.
Usually it's a rant against what they don't like about defined
religious gods.
Theists probably assume it is enough to show that order exists in a
complex fashion, and attribute it to something that they can't conceive
as being any other alternative.
In which case they fail because if something specific and complex (such
as this unvierse) has to have a designer, then so too, did the designer
of this universe. If the designer could have existed without being
designed, then the "chain of logic" breaks, and so, too, could the
universe exist without a designer.
No, the designer could have existed. One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't. Actually this
universe having a beginning, by asserted science data, doesn't mean
that other universes couldn't have existed forever.
Naturalists believe that everything
has to be proven by a laboratory,
No. Wrong again.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
Of
course the downfall is that they think that if isn't, then it isn't
true...which well to many is sad.
But the plain fact is, as I've stated many times, if there was quite
literally nothing before this universe began, then what, exactly, was
there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer:
quite literally nothing.
I am sorry I am not your follower to know you have stated that many
times.
I'm glad you're not my follower. I don't want people who fail to think
to be on my side. But regarding the remark, I stated it in so many
words in the opening message of this thread, so now we have a de facto
admission from you that you're blathering blindly on about this topic
without having read and digested the genesis of it. Why is this not a
surprise?
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Sounds like your trying to play 'Who's On First', but the fact
is there had to be something logically for something to happen.
If this is the best level you can reach, I'm not going to waste any
more time on you. You need to seriously get outside the box and
*think*. You need to think outside this universe or you're wasting
even your own time.
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
And
since there is a scientific formula that proofs that,
No there is not. You cannot apply the laws of physics that were born
with *this* universe to what may or may not have existed *prior* to
this unvierse. It really is that simple.
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe. The
laws may have already existed, and there had to be something to create
a massive force of energy. When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
then there was
something before the Universe or anything started. It then doesn't
have to be a given either that the Universe was the first action that
ever happened
You are so buried in this universe that you cannot get your mind
outside of it. That's something you need to work on before you try to
waste any more of my time.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Just a pithy little capsuled theorem would do for a start.
Most
people would attribute real blind luck or a controller.
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Why would anyone want to go to far? The results are if there was
chaos, there is very much less, and lot's more order now, and not just
simple order, complex order; that you can't explain or give us any
evidence of why this is so.
Can you find
spontaneous events now from beyond or from earth that don't already
have order, that cause order to come about?
Actually there are some in the universe, but that's not at issue. Your
problem is that you're still bogged down in **THIS** universe. What
you apparently are unable to grasp is that before this universe
existed, this universe did not exist, and neither did the laws of
physics which are tied to it and to which your thinking is hopelessly
enslaved.
It is the issue. Bring em on. We need to see spontaneous events
happening that create order on their own.
If I am wasting your time, then you don't have to answer, instead of
acting foolishly with a childish remark like that.
The child is you. You cannot get your thinking straight and until you
do, there is no point in pursuing this.
Budikka
Translation. If you don't think like the great Budikka, you are
childish.
CJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
05 Nov 2006 08:18:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
Atheism on it's own definition says a god
cannot exist. Never can be proved. It's always a assertively wrong
theory from it's definition.
No, atheism is simply a lack of belief that a god does exist. Has
nothing to do with theories.
It is a theroy. It even has the root of theory in the word base.
Usually it's a rant against what they don't like about defined
religious gods.
Atheism comes from from the greek "a-" (without) and "theos" (god.)
Theory comes from the greek "theor" (to view.)
They are NOT from the same root. Go learn what you're talking about
before you talk about it.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
05 Nov 2006 04:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:18:47 -0500, Mike Anderson
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
- Refer: <eikrom$qru$1@news04.infoave.net>
curtjester1@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Atheism on it's own definition says a god
cannot exist. Never can be proved. It's always a assertively wrong
theory from it's definition.
No, atheism is simply a lack of belief that a god does exist. Has
nothing to do with theories.
It is a theroy. It even has the root of theory in the word base.
Usually it's a rant against what they don't like about defined
religious gods.
Atheism comes from from the greek "a-" (without) and "theos" (god.)
Theory comes from the greek "theor" (to view.)
They are NOT from the same root. Go learn what you're talking about
before you talk about it.
He would be off the air for 18 or more years...
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 06:52:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
wrote:
Do you have an opinion of what chaos and what order is?
Order is the scientific approach to understanding this universe. Chaos
is the religious approach.
How does chaos
become order?
Dispense with religion. Use the scientific method.
How come chaos ceases and order predominates?
Laws of physics which came into being when this universe did.
You claim the scientific approach. Prove your point, besides
theorizing. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed (it can only
change form)
Note the word "if" in your statement.
--science theorm, where was the matter before the inception
of your so-called universe? Was it chaotic? What caused it to end up
an orderly universe and not a chaotic one?
We don't know at this point. But whereas theists paradoxically claim
ignorance is knowledge: "we don't know therefore godidit", scientists
actually investigate. It really is that simple. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the intellectual wherewithal to grasp something so
simple.
The paradox is back at you. Since there was something and nothing as
you implied,
First mistake. I didn't *imply* anything. In fact, just the opposite.
I specificly said we don't know.
now that something cannot be a designer.
Unsupported assertion. Here we go again. If it was actually nothing
at all, it cannot be a designer, but again, we don't know what was
there, so it's quite fatuous to be making assertions as you do here.
But the assertion is made in the title of the thread.
And has been supported by 30 reasons why there's no design. These are
reasons, not scientific proofs. Please, do yourself a favor and learn
to tell the difference. These reasons address the
creationist/so-called intelligent so-called design movement which has
its roots solely in the Bible. My reasons address that god, nothing
else.
It 'has' to be
something else, or atheism falls flat on it's face.
Quite wrong. Suppose it was some alien kid in another unvierse doing a
kitchen experiment that yielded this universe? That leaves atheism
squarely in place without having a designer in any meaningful sense.
Well the alien would still be godlike to this environment. Of course
one couldn't run from the fact that a godlike being could create the
aliens of that planet. Atheism on it's own definition says a god
cannot exist.
You're a pathetic little liar. Atheism says nothing of the sort.
Atheism is a-theism - without theism - without a belief in gods. It
claims no proof that there is not god, only that no god has been proven
Now are we done with stupidity and straw men, or do you have a bunch
more of this crap to trot out?
Never can be proved. It's always a assertively wrong
theory from it's definition.
Uh-huh. Get an education and save yourself some embarrassment, please.
It can only be a
viable theory if nothing existed before anything existed.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy. It even has the root of theory in the word base.
You are one of the most stupid people I've ever come across, and in
this forum, where idiot fundies post regularly, that's saying
something.
Usually it's a rant against what they don't like about defined
religious gods.
No, it's a slam in the face of idiots amongst other things. You're a
classic case in point.
Theists probably assume it is enough to show that order exists in a
complex fashion, and attribute it to something that they can't conceive
as being any other alternative.
In which case they fail because if something specific and complex (such
as this unvierse) has to have a designer, then so too, did the designer
of this universe. If the designer could have existed without being
designed, then the "chain of logic" breaks, and so, too, could the
universe exist without a designer.
No, the designer could have existed.
Never said it couldn't. Only said there's no evidence for one and many
reasons why the Christian god makes no sense as one. Now are you done
with your lies, straw men and ***** or what?
One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't. Actually this
universe having a beginning, by asserted science data, doesn't mean
that other universes couldn't have existed forever.
This is relevant to what?
Naturalists believe that everything
has to be proven by a laboratory,
No. Wrong again.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
Another left-field comment. Are you even thinking when you type this
*****?
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
Another unsupported ***** assertion.
Of
course the downfall is that they think that if isn't, then it isn't
true...which well to many is sad.
But the plain fact is, as I've stated many times, if there was quite
literally nothing before this universe began, then what, exactly, was
there to prevent quite literally anything from happening? Answer:
quite literally nothing.
I am sorry I am not your follower to know you have stated that many
times.
I'm glad you're not my follower. I don't want people who fail to think
to be on my side. But regarding the remark, I stated it in so many
words in the opening message of this thread, so now we have a de facto
admission from you that you're blathering blindly on about this topic
without having read and digested the genesis of it. Why is this not a
surprise?
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
Where did I say I did? Is this all you've got? Grade school blather
and ***** assertion?
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Nothing is known about what was here before, if anything was. Got
that?
Sounds like your trying to play 'Who's On First', but the fact
is there had to be something logically for something to happen.
If this is the best level you can reach, I'm not going to waste any
more time on you. You need to seriously get outside the box and
*think*. You need to think outside this universe or you're wasting
even your own time.
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
Another unsupproted assertion. Start with item one in this series and
refute them one by one, then I'll take statements like that a bit more
seriously. Otherwise you're just full of *****, aren't you?
And
since there is a scientific formula that proofs that,
No there is not. You cannot apply the laws of physics that were born
with *this* universe to what may or may not have existed *prior* to
this unvierse. It really is that simple.
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe.
So where did they come from? A designer? Everything in this universe,
moron, is part and parcel of this universe and arose with this
universe. It did not exist separately from this universe as far as the
best scientific minds can determine.
The
laws may have already existed,
May have? Where is there even a glimmer of a pretence of evidence
supporting that ***** statement?
and there had to be something to create
a massive force of energy.
Why? You still don't get it, do you?
When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
Yes, it was there **AFTER THE UNIVERSE BEGAN**. But I'm slamming your
idiot, clueless asswipe slack-jawed drooling face against the fact that
this universe is self-contained. It began at the Big Bang. We have no
idea what was there before. It could well have been literally nothing,
it could have been everything, it could have been some advanced alien
kid playing with a chemistry set in his kitchen. We don't know. Now
what is it going to take to slam your dumbass intellect up against that
so sharply that it will actually register in that pigshit excuse for a
brain you're handicapped by?
then there was
something before the Universe or anything started. It then doesn't
have to be a given either that the Universe was the first action that
ever happened
You are so buried in this universe that you cannot get your mind
outside of it. That's something you need to work on before you try to
waste any more of my time.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Just a pithy little capsuled theorem would do for a start.
You need to do the work. It's not my job to educate you - especially
whern you're doing your damnedest to prove that you're ineducable.
Most
people would attribute real blind luck or a controller.
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Why would anyone want to go to far?
Something which comes immediately to mind? To avoid embarrassing
themselves on Usenet by making farcical and utterly clueless left-field
remarks for one.
The results are if there was
chaos, there is very much less, and lot's more order now, and not just
simple order, complex order; that you can't explain or give us any
evidence of why this is so.
It's perfectly explicable given a starting point at Planck Time. Prior
to that is where it gets shaky..
Can you find
spontaneous events now from beyond or from earth that don't already
have order, that cause order to come about?
Actually there are some in the universe, but that's not at issue. Your
problem is that you're still bogged down in **THIS** universe. What
you apparently are unable to grasp is that before this universe
existed, this universe did not exist, and neither did the laws of
physics which are tied to it and to which your thinking is hopelessly
enslaved.
It is the issue. Bring em on. We need to see spontaneous events
happening that create order on their own.
Then go back to before the universe began. Or read up about vacuum
energy (or zero-point energy) which is directly observable in nanoscale
devices.
If I am wasting your time, then you don't have to answer, instead of
acting foolishly with a childish remark like that.
The child is you. You cannot get your thinking straight and until you
do, there is no point in pursuing this.
Budikka
Translation. If you don't think like the great Budikka, you are
childish.
No, if you don't think, you're a moron. It, like you, really is that
simple.
Now if this is all you've got, I'm done with you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 12:38:37 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2006 08:08:41 -0800, wrote:
Atheism on it's own definition says a god cannot exist.
Only the atheism of your imagination. Real atheism doesn't.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy.
How is your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster a theory?
Upon what observations is it based? What predictions does it make?
No, the designer could have existed. One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't.
If you understood what "laws of the universe" means, you wouldn't make
such a silly statement. How is someone "influenced" by someone else's
observations?
Actually this universe having a beginning
Evidence? Only Creationists make that assertion.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
Evolution is an observation - it doesn't require logic.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
So which lab experiment have you done about the state of things before
there was a universe?
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Science would tend to go the way of "we have no idea". We don't know
whether anything existed. We don't know whether nothing existed. We
don't know. And there's no way to find out.
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
Lack of evidence puts it in the category of "it doesn't matter".
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe.
By definition they can't pre-exist the universe.
The laws may have already existed
The laws of physics didn't exist before man did. let alone before the
universe did.
and there had to be something to create a massive force of energy.
Evidence? Argumentum ad Ignorantium isn't evidence. What "massive
force of energy"? (Which is almost a triple oxymoron.)
When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
You can't destroy it *IN THIS UNIVERSE*. Please show that this was
true when there was no universe. Formulas that worked in that
situation will suffice.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Just a pithy little capsuled theorem would do for a start.
No theorem. How the universe changed from it's initial state to what
it is today is well understood.
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Why would anyone want to go to far? The results are if there was
chaos, there is very much less, and lot's more order now, and not just
simple order, complex order; that you can't explain or give us any
evidence of why this is so.
You're trying to determine what went on outside this universe by
applying rules that only pertain to within this universe. It's like
calling all British drivers bad drivers because American law requires
driving on the right side of the road. The laws of this universe
didn't apply before the universe existed.
It is the issue. Bring em on. We need to see spontaneous events
happening that create order on their own.
You provide the non-universe and we'll show you how it happens.
Translation. If you don't think like the great Budikka, you are
childish.
More like, if you think like a child you're childish.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 02:44:22 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Nov 2006 08:08:41 -0800, wrote:
Atheism on it's own definition says a god cannot exist.
Only the atheism of your imagination. Real atheism doesn't.
Every other definition with an 'a' in front means non like in amoral.
But then you don't offer any definition, do you?
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy.
How is your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster a theory?
Upon what observations is it based? What predictions does it make?
That's the atheists dilemma isn't it. And you aren't offering.
Creationism is based on observation of the 'final product'.
No, the designer could have existed. One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't.
If you understood what "laws of the universe" means, you wouldn't make
such a silly statement. How is someone "influenced" by someone else's
observations?
By having matter prior to a universe, you can't exclude 'something'
from existing. Deal with that law of the universe.
Actually this universe having a beginning
Evidence? Only Creationists make that assertion.
No, everybody and their brother makes that assertion. But if the
universe didn't have a beginning...you can go and tell us more.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
Evolution is an observation - it doesn't require logic.
Evolution is just made up definitions that try to observe the progress
of nature, and highly debatable of those observations.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
So which lab experiment have you done about the state of things before
there was a universe?
Try to get rid of something ala Einstein. You can't.
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Science would tend to go the way of "we have no idea". We don't know
whether anything existed. We don't know whether nothing existed. We
don't know. And there's no way to find out.
You may not know what existed, but there had to be something to exist.
There is the matter formula. And there has to be something to cause
the force needed to bring the universe about.
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
Lack of evidence puts it in the category of "it doesn't matter".
The logic of what is in nature does. Can't develop sex organs without
having sex...and thousands of other examples of simple observation.
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe.
By definition they can't pre-exist the universe.
Why not?
The laws may have already existed
The laws of physics didn't exist before man did. let alone before the
universe did.
Obviously before man, but prove it before earth or man, or other things
in the universe.
and there had to be something to create a massive force of energy.
Evidence? Argumentum ad Ignorantium isn't evidence. What "massive
force of energy"? (Which is almost a triple oxymoron.)
Simple observation. Nothing comes from nothing. Blank space does
nothing.
When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
You can't destroy it *IN THIS UNIVERSE*. Please show that this was
true when there was no universe. Formulas that worked in that
situation will suffice.
I don't know that you can't destroy it prior, but you have to have
something to create something. It's like asking how God created.
Might never get an answer unless it's revealed.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Just a pithy little capsuled theorem would do for a start.
No theorem. How the universe changed from it's initial state to what
it is today is well understood.
Before you stated that Creationists only say the Universe had a
beginning. Now you state that it had an initial state. What was it's
initial state, and how did it get to be what it is now? (Anything
simple will suffice).
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Why would anyone want to go to far? The results are if there was
chaos, there is very much less, and lot's more order now, and not just
simple order, complex order; that you can't explain or give us any
evidence of why this is so.
You're trying to determine what went on outside this universe by
applying rules that only pertain to within this universe. It's like
calling all British drivers bad drivers because American law requires
driving on the right side of the road. The laws of this universe
didn't apply before the universe existed.
How do you know that there were no laws before the universe existed?
Maybe we were part of another set of universes that expelled the one
universe known as ours.
It is the issue. Bring em on. We need to see spontaneous events
happening that create order on their own.
You provide the non-universe and we'll show you how it happens.
You seem to know what the non-universe is...you tell us.
Translation. If you don't think like the great Budikka, you are
childish.
More like, if you think like a child you're childish.
--
More like, if you can't answer the question, go to the back of the
line.
CJ
rukbat at optonline dot net
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures
or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither
can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives
its physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eter-
nity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the exist-
ing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature.
- Albert Einstein, as quoted in _Billions and Billions_, Carl Sagan.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 07:23:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Nov 2006 08:08:41 -0800, wrote:
Atheism on it's own definition says a god cannot exist.
Only the atheism of your imagination. Real atheism doesn't.
Every other definition with an 'a' in front means non like in amoral.
But then you don't offer any definition, do you?
I already did. If you don't like it, tough, but that's the deifnition
we commonly use in alt.atheism. Go look it up in a dictionary before
you make an even bigger idiot of yourself than you've already done.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy.
How is your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster a theory?
Upon what observations is it based? What predictions does it make?
That's the atheists dilemma isn't it. And you aren't offering.
Creationism is based on observation of the 'final product'.
Creationism is based on disproven Bible myth and wishful thinking.
Period.
No, the designer could have existed. One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't.
If you understood what "laws of the universe" means, you wouldn't make
such a silly statement. How is someone "influenced" by someone else's
observations?
By having matter prior to a universe, you can't exclude 'something'
from existing. Deal with that law of the universe.
What law? It makes no difference if there was something or if there
was nothing; it still doesn't offer any support for claims that there
was an intelligent designer.
Actually this universe having a beginning
Evidence? Only Creationists make that assertion.
No, everybody and their brother makes that assertion. But if the
universe didn't have a beginning...you can go and tell us more.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
Evolution is an observation - it doesn't require logic.
Evolution is just made up definitions that try to observe the progress
of nature, and highly debatable of those observations.
Let's take that one to a separate thread. Bring your best evidence
supporting creation, or your best evidence refuting evolution, and I'll
be to wipe the floor with it. Just post the URL to the thread here and
I'll get right to it.
Meanwhile, swallow this: The Theory of Evolution has ~150 years of
scientific evidence supporting it. This evidence is published in
peer-reviewed journals the world over by people of all faiths and
nationalities.
Claims of creation and so-called intelligent so-called design have
*zero* scientific evidence supporting them as evidenced by complete
lack of publication in refereed journals.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
So which lab experiment have you done about the state of things before
there was a universe?
Try to get rid of something ala Einstein. You can't.
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Science would tend to go the way of "we have no idea". We don't know
whether anything existed. We don't know whether nothing existed. We
don't know. And there's no way to find out.
You may not know what existed, but there had to be something to exist.
Why? Where is your scientific evidence supporting this claim? The
laws by which you're totally hide-bound exist in this universe.
There's no evidence that they applied before this universe erupted.
Why would they?
There is the matter formula. And there has to be something to cause
the force needed to bring the universe about.
Why? Where is your scientific evidence supporting this claim? The
laws by which you're totally hide-bound exist in this universe.
There's no evidence that they applied before this universe erupted.
Why would they?
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
Lack of evidence puts it in the category of "it doesn't matter".
The logic of what is in nature does. Can't develop sex organs without
having sex.
So how do bacteria do it then?
..and thousands of other examples of simple observation.
Simple is what you do best. Another word for it is vacuous, or
clueless, or juvenile.
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe.
By definition they can't pre-exist the universe.
Why not?
The laws may have already existed
The laws of physics didn't exist before man did. let alone before the
universe did.
Obviously before man, but prove it before earth or man, or other things
in the universe.
Actually the laws of physics have existed since this universe began.
Or since Planck Time at any rate. Of course, they were not appreciated
for what they were until human intellect arrived. But we know they
existed because we see the consequences of them in space.
and there had to be something to create a massive force of energy.
Evidence? Argumentum ad Ignorantium isn't evidence. What "massive
force of energy"? (Which is almost a triple oxymoron.)
Simple observation. Nothing comes from nothing. Blank space does
nothing.
IN THIS UNVIERSE, DIMWIT, AND EVEN THAT NEEDS TO BE QUALIFIED. You
have offered not a shred of evidence supporting your claim that the
laws of physics in operation in *this* universe apply outside this
universe or applied before the inception of this universe.
When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
You can't destroy it *IN THIS UNIVERSE*. Please show that this was
true when there was no universe. Formulas that worked in that
situation will suffice.
I don't know that you can't destroy it prior, but you have to have
something to create something.
I'm putting you in for a place in the Guinness Book of World Records
for the most mindless assertions in a single thread.
It's like asking how God created.
Which god?
Might never get an answer unless it's revealed.
By whom?
How does a perfect god even begin to create? Ultimate perfection is a
fixed state. The act of creation requires a change. Impetus to change
implies imperfection. You cannot have a perfect creator. It's
completely illogical.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avialable information)
starting from the inception of this unvierse. Read a good cosmology
book.
Just a pithy little capsuled theorem would do for a start.
No theorem. How the universe changed from it's initial state to what
it is today is well understood.
Before you stated that Creationists only say the Universe had a
beginning. Now you state that it had an initial state. What was it's
initial state, and how did it get to be what it is now? (Anything
simple will suffice).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Most people cnanot think outside of this universe or beyond their pet
god.
Why would anyone want to go to far? The results are if there was
chaos, there is very much less, and lot's more order now, and not just
simple order, complex order; that you can't explain or give us any
evidence of why this is so.
You're trying to determine what went on outside this universe by
applying rules that only pertain to within this universe. It's like
calling all British drivers bad drivers because American law requires
driving on the right side of the road. The laws of this universe
didn't apply before the universe existed.
How do you know that there were no laws before the universe existed?
We never said that we did. We said the laws of this universe did not
exist because they arose with the universe. This is why you cannot
intelligently comment on matters prior to the existence of this
universe by referencing the laws of universe.
Maybe we were part of another set of universes that expelled the one
universe known as ours.
Maybe, but that doesn't imply necessarily that we have the same laws as
that previous universe. And there may have been quite literally
nothing. Now which part of **WE DON'T KNOW** is it that you need
remedial education on?
It is the issue. Bring em on. We need to see spontaneous events
happening that create order on their own.
You provide the non-universe and we'll show you how it happens.
You seem to know what the non-universe is...you tell us.
Translation. If you don't think like the great Budikka, you are
childish.
More like, if you think like a child you're childish.
--
More like, if you can't answer the question, go to the back of the
line.
Why would we want to go back there with you? We were there when we
were little kids, but we moved up. You're a tedious idiot who cannot
even grasp the simplest of cosmological concepts, yet you feel
completely free to pontificate at length upon them. You'll always be
at the back of the line.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #26 - 30 |
04 Nov 2006 07:00:10 PM |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2006 12:44:22 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Nov 2006 08:08:41 -0800, wrote:
Atheism on it's own definition says a god cannot exist.
Only the atheism of your imagination. Real atheism doesn't.
Every other definition with an 'a' in front means non like in amoral.
But then you don't offer any definition, do you?
Amoral doesn't mean "not riding a bicycle". Atheism doesn't mean
"having a particular belief". It means not theistic. You can make up
any definition you want, but no one will care.
Atheism isn't a "theory". Now isn't it time you gave up this inene
rambling claptrap before you dig yourself deeper?
It is a theroy.
How is your lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster a theory?
Upon what observations is it based? What predictions does it make?
That's the atheists dilemma isn't it. And you aren't offering.
What dilemma? You claim not holding a particular belief is a theory.
Prove your assertion. Do you even know what "theory" means?
Creationism is based on observation of the 'final product'.
Creationism is based on assuming your conclusion. The universe
exists. That proves that it exists. It doesn't prove who created it,
or whether it even WAS created.
No, the designer could have existed. One has to be influenced by laws
of the universe to assert that a designer couldn't.
If you understood what "laws of the universe" means, you wouldn't make
such a silly statement. How is someone "influenced" by someone else's
observations?
By having matter prior to a universe, you can't exclude 'something'
from existing.
I'm not asserting that matter existed prior to the universe, YOU are.
Prove your assertion.
Actually this universe having a beginning
Evidence? Only Creationists make that assertion.
No, everybody and their brother makes that assertion.
No cosmologists (the only people qualified to make it) do. Do I care
if all children believe that Santa exists? Of course not.
But if the universe didn't have a beginning...you can go and tell us more.
Nope. I didn't say it didn't have a beginning. And I didn't say it
did. You're making totally unwarranted assumptions.
Well in creation/evolution, they seem to refrain from logic when it
suits them.
Evolution is an observation - it doesn't require logic.
Evolution is just made up definitions that try to observe the progress
of nature, and highly debatable of those observations.
Evolution is the observation that allele frequencies in breeding
populations change over time. I have no idea what word you're
thinking of.
but already know it's impossible.
No, wrong again. How can you make assertions like this about something
of which we know so little?
because usually lab experiments go a ways in proving something isn't
true, rather than proving it so.
So which lab experiment have you done about the state of things before
there was a universe?
Try to get rid of something ala Einstein. You can't.
YOU brought up doing lab experiments, so YOU tell us which ones you
did.
You don't know that there was nothing before the universe existed.
What is known in science would tend to go the other way.
Science would tend to go the way of "we have no idea". We don't know
whether anything existed. We don't know whether nothing existed. We
don't know. And there's no way to find out.
You may not know what existed, but there had to be something to exist.
Or not. As I said, "we don't know" is the ONLY valid answer.
There is the matter formula.
What's a "matter formula"?
And there has to be something to cause
the force needed to bring the universe about.
Your evidence that:
a) the universe didn't always exist
b) if it didn't, force was needed to bring it about
(And please stop the proofs from incredulity. The fact that you don't
know something doesn't prove that what you believe is true.)
You haven't even got to a level yet. You definitely haven't come up
with anything that remotely puts the fire out on a designer
possibility.
Lack of evidence puts it in the category of "it doesn't matter".
The logic of what is in nature does. Can't develop sex organs without
having sex...and thousands of other examples of simple observation.
Since you have no idea what laws (if, indeed, there were any at all)
were in effect before the universe existed, you can't expect a
statement like that to be taken seriously.
You cannot prove one law of physics was 'born' from this universe.
By definition they can't pre-exist the universe.
Why not?
Because the "laws of the universe" are observations stated by people.
No universe, no people. No people, no laws.
The laws may have already existed
The laws of physics didn't exist before man did. let alone before the
universe did.
Obviously before man
Obviously not, since they're merely statements MADE B Y MAN.
but prove it before earth or man, or other things
in the universe.
I just did. Before anyone was around, there was no one to state
Newton's 2nd Law, was there? No one to make observations that led to
that belief. So no law. (A law of the universe isn't THAT something
happens, it's THE STATEMENT that it happens.)
and there had to be something to create a massive force of energy.
Evidence? Argumentum ad Ignorantium isn't evidence. What "massive
force of energy"? (Which is almost a triple oxymoron.)
Simple observation. Nothing comes from nothing.
In this universe. This universe didn't come to be in this universe.
Blank space does nothing.
In this universe.
When you cannot destroy what's in the
universe, and only can rearrange it, then it's very logical that it was
there at it's inception getting rearranged, rather coming from 'thin
air'.
You can't destroy it *IN THIS UNIVERSE*. Please show that this was
true when there was no universe. Formulas that worked in that
situation will suffice.
I don't know that you can't destroy it prior, but you have to have
something to create something.
IN THIS UNIVERSE. Please show how this was true before the universe
existed.
It's like asking how God created.
Might never get an answer unless it's revealed.
You'll NEVER get an answer, because in order to get an answer we'd
have to be outside the universe, which is impossible since the
universe is a singularity.
I just wonder how from nothing, or chaos how order came to be.
That is reasonably well understood (given the avia | | | | | | | | | | |
