Universal Design

[Iacchus]

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

[brian0918]

[Everything is related to the design of the whole.]

In a sense.
[Without the whole, there would be no design.]

That makes no sense.
[For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body]

The only "purpose" that anything serves is the purpose we create for it. There is no "purpose" except that which we create for anything and everything that exists. For example, if you're playing pool, you can say that the cue ball's purpose is to hit this ball or that ball, but it is just a collection of particles smacking another collection of particles, transfering kinetic energy in the process. By itself, it has no purpose. We give it purpose. Without us, "purpose" wouldn't exist, just as the concept of "time" wouldn't make any sense in a Universe devoid of matter. (lacking any sort of motion through this time.)
[Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. ]

You can call the makeup and distribution of matter in the Universe a "design," and, sure, a finger would be part of the overall "design."
[It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way.]

No, it doesn't. You are assuming that purpose which we apply to the world can exist without us, then using that assumption to show that purpose can exist without us. ;)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. What purpose would a universe serve, isolated and detached? Without some greater whole to be a part of, there would be no design (to the whole). I think you have a problem here with infinite regress.

[pupdog]

Assuming the whole was, indeed, designed. Why make this assumption?

If there are any never-attached fingers lying about, then by Iacchian definition ("every last single detail") they must have a purpose. But where has it been demonstrated that there is either purpose or design to the universe?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dymanic

What purpose would a universe serve, isolated and detached? Without some greater whole to be a part of, there would be no design (to the whole). I think you have a problem here with infinite regress. Actually, I'm not even sure I needed to mention the Universe as a whole, since there are microcosms within microcosms and macrocosms beyond macrocosms still. And the only thing that really needs to be mentioned is that everything serves it's purpose in relation to the relative whole. In which case the whole can be anything relative to the sum of its parts. For example the finger in relation to the hand serves the purpose of the hand as a whole; and, when taken further, the hand serves the purpose of the body as whole; and, when taken further, the body serves the purpose of family unit as a whole; and, when taken further, the family serves the purpose of the community as a whole; and on so and so forth, ad infinitum.

Albeit by mentioning the Universe as a whole, it does convey a sense of Universal Design now doesn't it?

[brian0918]

See my above post.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

Does this kind of nonsense work on anyone who's older than fifteen?

Seriously. I'd like to hear from anyone on this board who thinks this is good stuff.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pupdog

Assuming the whole was, indeed, designed. Why make this assumption?Regardless, you cannot say the whole is without its design.


If there are any never-attached fingers lying about, then by Iacchian definition ("every last single detail") they must have a purpose. But where has it been demonstrated that there is either purpose or design to the universe? Would it have made more sense if I said "severed" fingers? Obviously the fingers must have come from some place, right? So, once they've become detached, they don't serve any purpose to the body as a whole. Unless of course you plan to eat them for dinner. Ummm good, finger food. :p

[brian0918]

Originally posted by scribble
Seriously. I'd like to hear from anyone on this board who thinks this is good stuff.

It's GOLD, Jerry! GOLD! :D

http://www.dreamagic.com/vivianrose/hytner.gif

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ummm good, finger food. :p
Still waiting for a reply to my original post... :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Does this kind of nonsense work on anyone who's older than fifteen?

Seriously. I'd like to hear from anyone on this board who thinks this is good stuff. However, it clearly illustrates that everything has a sense of purpose. For example, what would be the purpose of a leg, if not to give you a leg to stand on? :D

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, it clearly illustrates that everything has a sense of purpose.
Of course it does, if you simply ignore my original post. I'm still waiting for a reply. And no, sorry, a reply to this post doesn't qualify. Please reply to my original post. Take it sentence by sentence. Do not skip anything, please. :D

[Z]

um... let me think... No. Just because something is part of a whole does not invoke purpose.

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.

Artistic design infers function towards an aesthetic purpose, in which the parts may or may not function towards the whole, but are stylistically or artistically a part of the whole - like the engraving of a watch case or the painting of a structure. However, aesthetic purpose fails with regards to organic life - although some life is beautiful, in no case is the aesthetic appearance of life completely aesthetic. Human skin tones differ in the ammount of present pigmentation, which is all part of the function of protection of the organism from harmful effects of sunlight. Beautiful plumage on birds attracts mates. Spots on butterflies' wings ward off predators. Every ounce of beauty in nature is geared toward purpose... and, of course, beauty is purely a subjective term applied by the human observer.

Some may choose to see intelligence applied behind the design and function of life-forms... yet I wonder at this concept because there are parts of the whole which serve no purpose whatsoever. The vestigial organs of the human body serve no purpose and can be removed without concern. Nor do they serve aesthetic purpose. They are a result of natural process, not intelligent or artistic design.

What purpose the bones in the fins of a whale, bones which resemble the bones of feet and fingers? Fish lack this structure design, and it serves no identifiable or reasonable purpose, neither functionally nor aesthetically, for the whale - or for any creature in contact with the whale.

What purpose the stinger of some bees, which when employed costs the life of the bee? If one cries intelligent design, one must be deeply concerned about a designer who creates self-destructive and suicidal life forms.

What purpose those tiny worms that attach to the eyelashes and do absolutely nothing? They cannot be seen, save by our advanced technology, cannot be sensed in any way, and are utterly without function. We neither need them nor notice them nor their lack... therefore, they serve no function or purpose.

This all serves to show that overall design, universal design, is sorely lacking with regard to life. But what about the rest of the universe?

Well, the very fact that most of the universe cannot support life infers that life is not the primary function of the universe. If so, what is the function of the universe? Based on analysis of its parts, there IS no function involved. Stars, nebulae, planets, clouds, all exist for no apparent reason. Sure, we can speculate a CAUSE for these events, but these are themselves phenomenae without function, without purpose. The universe does nothing well, or even adequately, except exists.

Your argument is a logical farce... that intelligent design can be inferred by wholeness. But what is wholeness? This is a complete absurdity. You're saying, "Look, everything is here, so someone must have designed it all." That's utter nonsense, and I doubt anyone over the age of 10 would buy it.

In fact, my son (who is 5) laughed outright. His answer was, "But if someone designed it all, they got it all wrong.. That's not too intelligent, Daddy."

There's not even a sensible means of refuting this gibberish, because we would never know if something was missing from the universe.. IN fact, your definition is so all-inclusive as to be meaningless as well.

I could just as well say that the parts of the Universe serve to make up its wholeness, so the Universe must be a machine. Well, it's just as nonsensical, and just as ridiculous.

No, Iacchus, once again, this is wishful thinking from the Deist crowd. The whole lacks design. The whole lacks common sense. The whole lacks function. The whole lacks pattern.

Thank you, good night.

[Z]

Annoyedly removing double post... thanks... duh

[scribble]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In fact, my son (who is 5) laughed outright. His answer was, "But if someone designed it all, they got it all wrong.. That's not too intelligent, Daddy."


Thank you, good night. [/B]

Sheesh. I guess I was being too generous - and we still don't have anyone saying his post is all that.

<a href=http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html >
Iacchus, is your feedback loop broken to the point that you can't even see how stupid your own arguments are?</a>

Seriously. Do you ever step back, take a look at things and ask yourself why the hell you're still posting here? I'm sure everyone else is wondering.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

[list]The only "purpose" that anything serves is the purpose we create for it. There is no "purpose" except that which we create for anything and everything that exists. For example, if you're playing pool, you can say that the cue ball's purpose is to hit this ball or that ball, but it is just a collection of particles smacking another collection of particles, transfering kinetic energy in the process. By itself, it has no purpose. We give it purpose. Without us, "purpose" wouldn't exist, just as the concept of "time" wouldn't make any sense in a Universe devoid of matter. (lacking any sort of motion through this time.) In other words what you're saying is that we're the only purpose makers in a Universe which is otherwise without purpose, right? That doesn't make sense does it? Because obviously purpose does exist. How do you know, due to our large brains of course, that this is the very thing which allows us to recognize it? You know, like the more poweful a telescope you have, the more capable you are of observing the furthest outreaches of the Universe?


You can call the makeup and distribution of matter in the Universe a "design," and, sure, a finger would be part of the overall "design."Yeah, it's not like it "popped up" out of nowhere right?


No, it doesn't. You are assuming that purpose which we apply to the world can exist without us, then using that assumption to show that purpose can exist without us. ;)But then, what are you suggesting, that our sense of purpose exists outside of the Universe? How so? And how is it that we can even establish a sense of purpose, without acknowledging other Universal laws of order which have already been set in place? Which, in and of itself belies purpose.

[jimlintott]

Iacchus, is your feedback loop broken to the point that you can't even see how stupid your own arguments are? (http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html)


That is hilarious. Thanks.

Someone obviously doesn't play golf.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by scribble


Sheesh. I guess I was being too generous - and we still don't have anyone saying his post is all that.

<a href=http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html >
Iacchus, is your feedback loop broken to the point that you can't even see how stupid your own arguments are?</a>

Seriously. Do you ever step back, take a look at things and ask yourself why the hell you're still posting here? I'm sure everyone else is wondering.

This post is rude and serves no purpose, unlike the IGNORE function. How does your post contribute to the conversation Scribble?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

One of the basic ways people make sense of the world is to evaluate purpose in the things we observe. I believe this is what "final causes" meant to Aristotle; the intent which guides the specific action. And so, people see purpose to harm (or help) them, in another person's actions; they can be mistaken, but being able to immediately evaluate such a purpose is beneficial to survival. Logic can be involved in the evaluation; but mostly this is intuitive/instinctive.

Taking this further, people see intent in non-human behavior; be it regarding animals -- where it can be a veridically correct evaluation, or the weather, or illness, or the flow of their own life, or their government. Thus we see purpose/intent in every perception; and it is good, and it is useful; sometimes, perhaps most times. And with that, personification springs forth; and the fire can TRY to destroy our homes; and we can try to Fight Back. And the universe can be our ally; or it can have something against us.

Without a strong intent of our own; we are prey to the ebbs and flows of life, and it truly is the case that the mindless universe (or "the force of others") has an intent stronger than their own, and drives that person's life for them.

[Ratman_tf]

Our legs fit into pants perfectly. Therefore our legs were designed to one day fit into pants.

God exists! What do I win?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Sheesh. I guess I was being too generous - and we still don't have anyone saying his post is all that.
<a href=http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html >
Iacchus, is your feedback loop broken to the point that you can't even see how stupid your own arguments are?</a>

Seriously. Do you ever step back, take a look at things and ask yourself why the hell you're still posting here? I'm sure everyone else is wondering. Yes, if we take the greater aspect of the whole and dissect it into a gezillion pieces, to where nothing is no longer recognizable, we will have established that there is no purpose. Hey!

By the way, what's the purpose behind dissecting things in the first place? Is it someone's intrinsic sense (of course that belies purpose as well) of getting their jollies?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

Ah more of the Lifegazer stuff, but yours is without his need to determine the outcome before asking the question.

Everything is related to the design of the whole.
That is a cart horse assumption Iachuss, where is the desaign, there is the result of contigent history, but where is the design? Animals create structures that have a form, and sometimes that form is related to a design. But random processes can also create forms. One creates forms the other creates forms. Why is the sandune like a honey comb, they both have form, where ios the design of the sand dune?

It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

Like torture and starvation, how about intestinal parasites and genital mutilation? What purpose does genocide serve?

Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does.
This assumes that there is some sort of meaningful relationship between disparate parts of the universe. When the planetoid hit the proto earth and knocked loose the moon, did it do so with purpose? That is what you use of the word design implies, purpose? When another planetoid hit Uranus and caused it to flip it's axis, did it have ppurpose? How can we know?

[Z]

Taken as a whole, the universe has no purpose either - whether divided into parts, or taken as a whole, no purpose emerges.

Function sometimes emerges, and occasionally aesthetics arise, but no overall purpose, no intent, no meaning.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.Well, at least that much is intelligible. Thanks.


In fact, my son (who is 5) laughed outright. His answer was, "But if someone designed it all, they got it all wrong.. That's not too intelligent, Daddy."Well, maybe he was speaking in terms of people here, and their own notions of design. In which case I might be inclined to agree with him. ;)


There's not even a sensible means of refuting this gibberish, because we would never know if something was missing from the universe.. IN fact, your definition is so all-inclusive as to be meaningless as well.While I can see that you can't make up your mind here ...

Originally posted by Iacchus

Or, we could just assume God is responsible for everything, no matter what form it appears to take. In fact there's nothing to say that the notion of God and evolution can't coexist. It just may entail a little more research, that's all.Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Iacchus, that's probably the most intelligent argument I've ever heard pro-God... in fact, it's closest to my own belief: that God exists and is responsible for everything, exactly as we see it - but that this isn't the God of Abraham or Mohammad or anyone else, but a completely unique and largely unknowable being. So, if in fact you're going to give God credit for anything, you'll have to give Him credit for designing the whole ball of wax.

[Z]

See, you misquote me and fail to understand my view...

NOTE: PLEASE SKIP IF YOU REALLY DON'T CARE. THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR IACCHUS.

I am a Priest. I studied for years in a Wiccan priesthood and have been ordained. I have all my paperwork in order, can perform marriages, last rites, etc. Obviously, as a Wiccan priest, there are those who feel my credentials are not as valid as those of, say, a Baptist minister or a Catholic priest, but at least it's not a 5-min ULC ordination...

Anyway, my view is that God made the ALL-THAT-IS (The Wankan-Tonka, if you will) and set it in motion. Whether through Big Bang, or whatever, God (Deity, whatever) gathered All The Mass That Is, packed it full of All The Energy That Is, and wrapped the mess up with All The Dimensions That Are and All The Laws That Will Be... then turned it loose.

So off it goes, forming a Universe in accordance with natural laws but without any purpose or design. Deity did it 'just because' or for some reason we can't fathom.

Anyway, Deity, from time to time, reaches in to 'tweak' it - adjusting probabilities and causing some unlikely things to happen - but never without sticking to the 'Original Rules'.

Does this imply intelligent design or even purpose? Heck, no.

I do give credit to a Creator, but I also deny any intelligent design or purpose. It seems contradictory to you, but to me it makes perfect sense.

Likewise, I see this Creator as being utterly indifferent to specific human life... The Creator might find Human life interesting (since the likelihood of it turning up was awfully slight), but be otherwise indifferent to Individual Humans. After all, is a scientist who spontaneously makes a new Virus interested in any particular member of the group, or in the group as a whole?

You mistakenly assume that, just because I give Deity credit for making It All, that I also give Deity credit for having a design in mind, or a purpose, or a pattern. I don't. I think Deity set the rules in motion and is watching, fascinated, probably not even aware of what may happen in the future. In fact, I find it entirely plausible that, like a child, Deity CANNOT know how this will turn out, and did it all JUST TO SEE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

Intelligent design? Nope. Not at all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Taken as a whole, the universe has no purpose either - whether divided into parts, or taken as a whole, no purpose emerges.

Function sometimes emerges, and occasionally aesthetics arise, but no overall purpose, no intent, no meaning. And what if its purpose was to serve existence? And there you have it folks. Without existence, there would be no sense of purpose. Which, is the way it is all the way up and down the scale. :D

In which case maybe what we need to ask, is who or what is responsible for existence, and the purpose thereof?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Anyway, my view is that God made the ALL-THAT-IS (The Wankan-Tonka, if you will) and set it in motion. Whether through Big Bang, or whatever, God (Deity, whatever) gathered All The Mass That Is, packed it full of All The Energy That Is, and wrapped the mess up with All The Dimensions That Are and All The Laws That Will Be... then turned it loose.

So off it goes, forming a Universe in accordance with natural laws but without any purpose or design. Deity did it 'just because' or for some reason we can't fathom.

Anyway, Deity, from time to time, reaches in to 'tweak' it - adjusting probabilities and causing some unlikely things to happen - but never without sticking to the 'Original Rules'.

Does this imply intelligent design or even purpose? Heck, noSorry, but structure implies design. And how do you know there's not a catcher behind the plate, ready to catch the next curve ball pitched? Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

[Z]

No - and neither are you. Structure implies nothing at all.

When a child takes the garden hose and thrusts it into the sand, there is no design. She doesn't know whether the soil coming up will continue to be black, or turn white, nor will she know whether she will bore to a water table or not (having done this in Florida as a child, I got several hoses stuck in the ground when the water broke through to the Aquifer level).

The new patterns of tunnel and rivulet, pond and dune have no design, no purpose - but they were made, just the same.

Likewise, look at so much of art. Some claim art has a purpose, but there are artists who will tell the truth of it. Things are sometimes made just because. They may have a function, or they may be pretty - or they may just be. This is the universe - nothing to imply design, nothing to imply purpose - just existence, which in itself implies nothing.Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

While I might concede such a thought, the fact is, based on what we know, what we can observe, and what we can infer, there is no game plan involved. Of course, we can't observe or know everything - and the day may come when the ultimate purpose is revealed and we see that everything fits that purpose perfectly. But at this stage in the game, we have to assume and logically determine that there is no known design, function, or purpose to reality as of yet.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Our legs fit into pants perfectly. Therefore our legs were designed to one day fit into pants.

God exists! What do I win? Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

[Z]

design implies protocol.

I see your point r.e. pants, but please elaborate. Let's hear about protocal on a Universal scale.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

When a child takes the garden hose and thrusts it into the sand, there is no design. She doesn't know whether the soil coming up will continue to be black, or turn white, nor will she know whether she will bore to a water table or not (having done this in Florida as a child, I got several hoses stuck in the ground when the water broke through to the Aquifer level).

The new patterns of tunnel and rivulet, pond and dune have no design, no purpose - but they were made, just the same.

Likewise, look at so much of art. Some claim art has a purpose, but there are artists who will tell the truth of it. Things are sometimes made just because. They may have a function, or they may be pretty - or they may just be. This is the universe - nothing to imply design, nothing to imply purpose - just existence, which in itself implies nothing. However, you're denying the forces which do exist, behind the actions of the artist and the child. There's nothing arbitrary about it whatsoever.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

While I might concede such a thought, the fact is, based on what we know, what we can observe, and what we can infer, there is no game plan involved. Of course, we can't observe or know everything - and the day may come when the ultimate purpose is revealed and we see that everything fits that purpose perfectly. But at this stage in the game, we have to assume and logically determine that there is no known design, function, or purpose to reality as of yet. Do you believe in heaven and hell?

[Z]

However, you're denying the forces which do exist, behind the actions of the artist and the child. There's nothing arbitrary about it whatsoever.

Obviously, you don't know children very well - or artists, I'd guess.

As father of 7 kids (5 of my own and two step-kids) I have some small experience with kids - arbitrary is their middle name.

And I've been an artist, too... my preferred medium was clay, and I made many sculptures without meaning, purpose, or reason - save, perhaps, to see what happens.

If you say Deity made the Universe to see what happens, then I'll agree with purpose - but not intelligent design function.

Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Hell? Absolutely not. Punishing evildoers serves no purpose at all (something that would take up an entire discussion all its own).

Heaven? Well, in spite of multiple studies, pondering through years of studies, volumes of knowledge, and the holy books of every major faith, I have to say I'm still undecided here. Reincarnation seems more likely by far - after all, at least, if one asserts souls to exist, reincarnation follows the conservation laws of the universe fairly well - but heaven? An invisible, undetectable place where souls go when people die?

Well, it might exist... it might not. Scientifically speaking, I'd say no; however, science doesn't know everything.

What I personally believe is... that souls either reincarnate or go into some sort of hibernation/waiting pattern - and await some future reincarnation (so, I guess, I'm all for reincarnation, period) on an improved Earth with an improved set of biological rules... but that reincarnation does NOT imply remembering past lives, or getting a second chance at things. We come from 'The Source' (Deity? who knows?) and we return to 'The Source' only to emerge once more as new Life.

Heaven and Hell are concepts usually reserved for those who would rather reject this world outright and hope something 'better' comes along.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

One of the basic ways people make sense of the world is to evaluate purpose in the things we observe. I believe this is what "final causes" meant to Aristotle; the intent which guides the specific action. And so, people see purpose to harm (or help) them, in another person's actions; they can be mistaken, but being able to immediately evaluate such a purpose is beneficial to survival. Logic can be involved in the evaluation; but mostly this is intuitive/instinctive.

Taking this further, people see intent in non-human behavior; be it regarding animals -- where it can be a veridically correct evaluation, or the weather, or illness, or the flow of their own life, or their government. Thus we see purpose/intent in every perception; and it is good, and it is useful; sometimes, perhaps most times. And with that, personification springs forth; and the fire can TRY to destroy our homes; and we can try to Fight Back. And the universe can be our ally; or it can have something against us.

Without a strong intent of our own; we are prey to the ebbs and flows of life, and it truly is the case that the mindless universe (or "the force of others") has an intent stronger than their own, and drives that person's life for them. And just because people tend to be self-oriented, does not mean there's a greater purpose to life than their own. As a matter-of-fact, no matter where you go in the Universe, you are there, in its center. Which is to say, the center of existence -- and hence meaning -- is everywhere. In other words it's kind of hard not to be self-centered, because it's part of the overall design.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

This assumes that there is some sort of meaningful relationship between disparate parts of the universe. When the planetoid hit the proto earth and knocked loose the moon, did it do so with purpose? That is what you use of the word design implies, purpose? When another planetoid hit Uranus and caused it to flip it's axis, did it have ppurpose? How can we know? Do ants understand the purpose and/or nature of human beings? Hardly. But neither does that imply human beings are without purpose or, ants for that matter.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And just because people tend to be self-oriented, does not mean there's a greater purpose to life than their own. As a matter-of-fact, no matter where you go in the Universe, you are there, in its center. Which is to say, the center of existence -- hence meaning -- is everywhere. In other words it's kind of hard not to be self-centered, because it's part of the overall design.

I would say, it's hard not to be self-centered, because being self-centered increases survivability; and thus, those who are not self-centered tend to get weeded out. If one empathizes with the hungry tiger that's running behind them, one might allow oneself to be eaten.

And then we get into social contract theory, as we look at how self-centeredness manifests social organization.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Obviously, you don't know children very well - or artists, I'd guess.

As father of 7 kids (5 of my own and two step-kids) I have some small experience with kids - arbitrary is their middle name.

And I've been an artist, too... my preferred medium was clay, and I made many sculptures without meaning, purpose, or reason - save, perhaps, to see what happens.Kids and artists are more unconscious, but there are rules to that as well.


Hell? Absolutely not. Punishing evildoers serves no purpose at all (something that would take up an entire discussion all its own).Do you believe that some people need to be put in prison?


Heaven? Well, in spite of multiple studies, pondering through years of studies, volumes of knowledge, and the holy books of every major faith, I have to say I'm still undecided here. Reincarnation seems more likely by far - after all, at least, if one asserts souls to exist, reincarnation follows the conservation laws of the universe fairly well - but heaven? An invisible, undetectable place where souls go when people die? If, in fact heaven and hell does exist, then we do have an ultimate purpose behind our being here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I would say, it's hard not to be self-centered, because being self-centered increases survivability; and thus, those who are not self-centered tend to get weeded out. If one empathizes with the hungry tiger that's running behind them, one might allow oneself to be eaten.

And then we get into social contract theory, as we look at how self-centeredness manifests social organization. So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

[Z]

If, in fact, heaven and hell exist - which, it seems, they do not.

Observable evidence shows no existance of a heaven or hell.. therefore, by what we can observe, there is no support of an ultimate purpose.

Kids and artists are more unconscious, but there are rules to that as well.

Now you're getting into ultimate source of motivations... digging deep down, we have no free will whatsoever, but that goes into yet another field of study, and a lengthy post as well - I believe fully we have no free will, but our lives are determined by the interaction of physical laws at levels we have no comprehension of, but even this determines no intelligent design or purpose. In fact, this removes much of purpose altogether.

Do you believe that some people need to be put in prison?

Actually, I believe prison, Death Row, fines, etc. are only crude ways at getting problems away from other people. Punishment is a means of dealing with damage after the fact; isn't it better to deter rather than punish? Or to understand the underlying causes of crime, and so eliminate them where possible?

But you asked initially about Hell - which, of course, requires a common understanding of what Hell is. Assuming the broadest semantical use of Hell, a place of eternal torment for the Damned, then no, I don't agree with Hell. And Hell is a lot different from Prison. People don't generally get paroled from Hell.

According to the Christians, Hell is pretty much a moot point anyway. Remember, Jesus is in charge down there now, and since He died for your sins, you'll never go to Hell. Nope, according to Revelations, won't the evildoer just be cast into oblivion now? No Hell anymore.

So, no, I don't believe in Hell. And I don't think people should go to prison; I think other deterents should be employed, but these deterents would require more in-depth knowledge of human behavior, and require us to put aside crude and archaic beliefs such as religion and politics and money, and require us to use extensive resources, and a lot of other things.

Practically speaking, prison works, because we aren't equipped for much else... but it's a damned shame and a terrible waste. And, as I said before, Prison is not Hell. People get out of prison - and innocent people sometimes go to prison. Your example is weak at best, son.

[Z]

So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

What an amazingly ignorant post.

"Everything seems to act upon its own behalf." Projecting anthropomorphic thinking onto other things - a common fallacy.

"everything has its own sense of meaning." Only those things which sense. Meaning life, I guess... so by your own statement, meaning is limited to where life exists - our little blue marble.

Pretty much mows down the Universal Meaning thing.

Otherwise, you're anthropomorphizing (is that the right word?) everything, assuming everything senses its own meaning or purpose, assuming everything senses anything at all.

Ignorance runs amuck... film at 11:00.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So yes, everything seems to act upon its own behalf (its own design). And yes, everything has its own sense of meaning. Which is to say, meaning is everywhere.

Meaning is an evaluation; and evaluation only occurs to a mind. Potential meaning is indeed everywhere; but without a mind to make the evaluation, that meaning goes unnoticed.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Meaning is an evaluation; and evaluation only occurs to a mind. Potential meaning is indeed everywhere; but without a mind to make the evaluation, that meaning goes unnoticed. So, our pea-brains have grown to the extent that we can acknowlege "potential meaning" which, is only potential because we have yet to acknowledge it? So, are our brains fabricating the meaning or, merely acknowledging it? Because if we're merely acknowledging it, then we have to ask where this meaning comes from. From a Greater Mind perhaps? Why does meaning exist at all then?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, our pea-brains have grown to the extent that we can acknowlege "potential meaning" which, is only potential because we have yet to acknowledge it? So, are our brains fabricating the meaning or, merely acknowledging it? Because if we're merely acknowledging it, then we have to ask where this meaning comes from. From a Greater Mind perhaps?

Well. Meaning is a cause-effect type of relation. If you're not in a place to sense an effect on yourself; then the potential didn't become the actual.

Let's say that seeing a baby smile means you remember all the good times you had when your child was a baby, and that means you feel good. Well, if you're not there to see the baby when it smiles, then the potential meaning related to remembering your child as a baby does not become an actual meaning.

That is my meaning. :)

[Iacchus]

However, you can observe a tree falling in the woods and not have it affect you (personally), and yet it could still have meaning. Neither would it make a difference whether you observed it or not, because the tree still has meaning relative to it's surroundings.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, you can observe a tree falling in the woods and not have it affect you (personally), and yet it could still have meaning.

I agree that personal (emotional) meaning is not the only kind. And an unobserved event (like a tree falling) could have meaning that is only discovered later (a bridge is blocked by the tree; thus the meaning is you can't get where you were going -- your intent/purpose is blocked).

If you mean something else; when it comes to the tree falling; could you elaborate? :)

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In other words what you're saying is that we're the only purpose makers in a Universe which is otherwise without purpose, right? That doesn't make sense does it?

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us. If you cannot understand this distinction, it may be hopeless :D


Because obviously purpose does exist. How do you know, due to our large brains of course, that this is the very thing which allows us to recognize it? You know, like the more poweful a telescope you have, the more capable you are of observing the furthest outreaches of the Universe?

I've tried and tried to make sense of this. It makes no sense to me. Please restate it. I'm not trying to avoid some point of yours, it's just that you don't make any sense. Nada. :D


Yeah, it's not like it "popped up" out of nowhere right?

I don't know, and I'm comfortable with that. Why are you unable to be? There are plenty of arguments for the appearance of matter from nothing. You do know that particles and antiparticles are constantly appearing and disappearing in the emptiness of space, right? This isn't just some theoretical result, it is observed.

Quantum mechanics goes against all common sense (such as that that suggests something can't come from "nothing"). Does that mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? I think you are appealing from ignorance. (the only way it can be done, I guess)


But then, what are you suggesting, that our sense of purpose exists outside of the Universe? How so?

See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.

And how is it that we can even establish a sense of purpose, without acknowledging other Universal laws of order which have already been set in place? Which, in and of itself belies purpose.

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. State more clearly.


Please reply to all of my reply. For every reply you reply to that occurred after this reply, I will reply requesting you reply to this reply... reply?

[Suggestologist]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brian0918
[B]

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us.

See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.
QUOTE]

I agree that purpose is created by minds. Please elaborate on how this makes it an "illusion". I certainly don't come to a dismissive conclusion. I would guess that all thought must be an "illusion" by your criteria; not just the assignment of purpose.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by brian0918


I agree that purpose is created by minds. Please elaborate on how this makes it an "illusion". I certainly don't come to a dismissive conclusion.

I'm using the word "illusion" in a very loose sense. It is the only word I could think of that would hopefully let Iacchus see the distinction that I was trying to go for. The word "purpose" has no meaning (neither does the word "meaning") without us. The only purpose in the world is that which we assign to the world. Maybe "illusion" is a bit closer to the truth than I care to admit.


I would guess that all thought must be an "illusion" by your criteria; not just the assignment of purpose.

Well, it can't all be an illusion. For example, causality does exist. We can look at this and determine what once was, and build up our understanding of the world. Maybe you are referring more to thought itself, and not specifically to knowledge, in which case, I would have to think about it for a while. :D

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does. And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)


I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm

[dmarker]

What does "meaning" mean?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by dmarker
What does "meaning" mean?

I believe philosophers have argued on the topic extensively.

My view is that it is intimately associated with cause-effect and equivalence (which is like cause-effect without the time factor). Meaning can occur on the thought landscape; as well as on the physical landscape (the person's body is the border between the two): The fact that one thing happened MEANS that another will happen, or has a change in probability of happening, or has already happened, or has a change in relative-probability of having already happened.

Something physical may MEAN that something on the though-landscape changes: Kissing makes You (MEANS) have feelings of falling in love, for example.

Something on the thought-landscape may MEAN that something physical will change; feeling in love can change the dilation of that person's pupils; thus the other person seeing dilated pupils (if they know what it MEANS) can increase their probability estimate (I mean this happens intuitively) of the person with dilated pupils being in love with them.

And so on.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


I believe philosophers have argued on the topic extensively.

My view is that it is intimately associated with cause-effect and equivalence (which is like cause-effect without the time factor). Meaning can occur on the thought landscape; as well as on the physical landscape (the person's body is the border between the two): The fact that one thing happened MEANS that another will happen, or has a change in probability of happening, or has already happened, or has a change in relative-probability of having already happened.

Something physical may MEAN that something on the though-landscape changes: Kissing makes You (MEANS) have feelings of falling in love, for example.

Something on the thought-landscape may MEAN that something physical will change; feeling in love can change the dilation of that person's pupils; thus the other person seeing dilated pupils (if they know what it MEANS) can increase their probability estimate (I mean this happens intuitively) of the person with dilated pupils being in love with them.

And so on.

Of course arguing whether or not the universe has meaning is useless unless we can come to some consensus on what "meaning" is.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Radrook



I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm

Creationist garbage. :D

I'm not sure how many of those are correct. Let's assume they all are.

First, they do not say how much a certain number has to be larger or smaller for our universe to be drastically different. Who's to say that changing the permittivity of space by one part in a thousand wouldn't result in a universe with different structures that could form life? Let's assume any small change in a single number completely messes everything up.

Second, they are taking all of these numbers separately. How many other combinations of different values (for all of these numbers) results in life? That is a better question to ask. I don't care to answer it. Let's assume there are no other combinations.

Third, life exists in this universe simply because the universe has taken on values for which life can exist as we know it. Otherwise, there would be no life, nobody to observe these values, nobody to have this debate on this message board. This might suggest that there must have been past universes without life. This suggestion must assume that life (in any form, imaginable or unimaginable) is difficult to create. (see my 2nd point)

"The anthropic principle [what you are trying to argue for] is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, He could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. "



See this Talk.Origins article for a more direct response to the idea of a "fine-tuned universe" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

If you mean something else; when it comes to the tree falling; could you elaborate? :) I would suggest that when anything has an impact on its environment, it has meaning, realized by the observer or no. Especially when you think in terms of how many things have to happen that we're unaware of, before anything can happen that we are aware of. So yes, everything is related meaningwise in that sense.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by brian0918


Creationist garbage. :D

There is no need for insultant name calling.
It tends to encourage the target of the insult to resort to the same tactic which when reported by an observant, would eventually lead to either one of the two participants getting temporarily or permanently banned.

It it is not to our advantage to resort to this type of thing.
Neither does it add anything to the discussion. In fact, it tends to terminate it even before it has gotten a chance to develop.

After all, who likes to feel obligated to read that kind of thing or to deal with a person capable of flinging that kind of comment at another person.

Not me! I just simply include the person in my list of persona-non grata and go by the very effective policy of out of sight out of mind which very neatly resolves the irritational issue imediately.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

I agree 100%
Here is an article which further reinforces this concept.

Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm Actually, I'm satisfied to know that the rules exist themselves, because there's nothing arbitrary about them whatsoever and, in fact suggest something quite deliberate, in terms of how the Universe has unfolded itself.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

I am saying that the purpose we create is simply an illusion. There is no actual purpose to anything, only purpose that we create and apply to the world. A bunch of rocks made of collections of particles have no purpose. We can chisel away at them and make a big round calendar, giving them a purpose, something useful for us. Without us, it loses its purpose, simply because it never actually had a purpose, just the illusion of one, created by us. If you cannot understand this distinction, it may be hopeless :D The usual copout. Have you heard of the expression separating the wheat from the chaff? Well, even the chaff has purpose too ... If nothing else to protect the wheat before the time its separated.


I've tried and tried to make sense of this. It makes no sense to me. Please restate it. I'm not trying to avoid some point of yours, it's just that you don't make any sense. Nada. :DI'm saying that if we didn't have such large brains maybe we wouldn't be able to recognize anything. In which case the only time meaning is completely arbitrary is without one (a brain).


I don't know, and I'm comfortable with that. Why are you unable to be? There are plenty of arguments for the appearance of matter from nothing. You do know that particles and antiparticles are constantly appearing and disappearing in the emptiness of space, right? This isn't just some theoretical result, it is observed.But then again if I didn't have such a large brain maybe I wouldn't be so inquisitive and would want to know?


Quantum mechanics goes against all common sense (such as that that suggests something can't come from "nothing"). Does that mean that quantum mechanics is wrong? I think you are appealing from ignorance. (the only way it can be done, I guess)There are a lot of things I'm unaware of, including quantum mechanics, but that does not mean they're without their purpose.


See above. The only "purpose" there is is the purpose we create, but it is all an illusion, something to help us understand the world.Yes, but why would we want to understand that which has no meaning? Or, are you saying the world does have meaning?


I couldn't figure out what you were talking about here. State more clearly.Please see my reply to Radrook above.


Please reply to all of my reply. For every reply you reply to that occurred after this reply, I will reply requesting you reply to this reply... reply? Ever consider that you place too much significance -- and hence meaning -- on what you say?

[Z]

What you say... means nothing.

Why do you Creationist lunatics continue to find significant that things are the way that they are? Have even one of you any evidence, any solid PROOF, that a life-bearing universe couldn't form if other constants weren't meant?

Does it in any way seem silly to you that these numbers are only Man's perception of scales, Man's application of scales, etc?

You should keep in mind, that whole article is purely conjecture, purely theory. If one constant were different, who is to say that every other constant wouldn't also change to adjust and create a new pattern for life?

Quit babbling this creationist dribble and get some REAL education, Iacchusradrook.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Everything is related to the design of the whole. Without the whole, there would be no design. For example, what purpose would a finger serve, isolated and detached, and at one point was not attached to a living body? Therefore the finger serves as part of the overall design of the whole, just as every single last detail in the Universe does.

I'll bite.

So, you choose to define the whole by pointing out the existence of the partial and its relation to the whole only to conclude that the partial cannot stand alone?

Socreates would spank you if he could read that. ;)

And do you know what? It suggests there's an ultimate purpose to everything which, is Universal (by design) by the way. ;)

:) Did you turn to a pragmatist now?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

What you say... means nothing.

Why do you Creationist lunatics continue to find significant that things are the way that they are? Have even one of you any evidence, any solid PROOF, that a life-bearing universe couldn't form if other constants weren't meant?

Does it in any way seem silly to you that these numbers are only Man's perception of scales, Man's application of scales, etc?

You should keep in mind, that whole article is purely conjecture, purely theory. If one constant were different, who is to say that every other constant wouldn't also change to adjust and create a new pattern for life?

Quit babbling this creationist dribble and get some REAL education, Iacchusradrook. Yeah, and what you say is packed full of meaning, except it doesn't mean anything, right? Ribbet ribbet ... :p

So, why should I listen to that which is anything but, totally meaningless? Why even try, if this is the most you can hope -- hmm, maybe even that would be wrong -- to do?

Why? Why? Why? Hmm ... Why should I care? You're right, the Universe is strictly mechanical, and machines don't care. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I'll bite.

So, you choose to define the whole by pointing out the existence of the partial and its relation to the whole only to conclude that the partial cannot stand alone?

Socreates would spank you if he could read that. ;)Yes, but don't you think we should approach everything from the standpoint of wholeness? Otherwise what's the point in trying to define anything?


:) Did you turn to a pragmatist now? Am not sure what you mean? Albeit I do believe I am somewhat the pragmatist.

Hey, did you catch the part about the frogs above? It's kind of the same argument don't you think? Ribbet ribbet ... :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Of course arguing whether or not the universe has meaning is useless unless we can come to some consensus on what "meaning" is. The Universe is like a flower, and the meaning is in its unfolding. And yes the birds do it and so do the bees. ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Universe is like a flower, and the meaning is in its unfolding.
Don't wade out to the deep end of the kiddie pool without your swimmies on.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but don't you think we should approach everything from the standpoint of wholeness? Otherwise what's the point in trying to define anything?

I don't get the dichotomy in that case, Iacchus. How can you describe a hand without referring to its fingers?

What you suggest would be of some essence if 5 fingers that existed separately decided to unite and form a hand.

Since we know that the fingers could not have existed independently how can we discuss about the whole and the partial here?


As always I am trying hard but I don't get you.You seem again charmed by something but I cannot specify by what. :)

Am not sure what you mean? Albeit I do believe I am somewhat the pragmatist. To be honest that was a sophistry but what you say seem close to pragmatism indeed.

Hey, did you catch the part about the frogs above? It's kind of the same argument don't you think? Ribbet ribbet ... :p

The example of the frogs is a classic!

[ceo_esq]

Cleo, darling, we never see you in this neighborhood anymore.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Cleo, darling, we never see you in this neighborhood anymore.]

Well, I cannot discuss about religion with people that behave like monkeys in banana time and stay calm the way you do but also, I cannot resist to Iacchus' charm. I have my weaknesses.... :cool:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I don't get the dichotomy in that case, Iacchus. How can you describe a hand without referring to its fingers?Do the fingers serve the function of the hand or, does the hand serve the function of the fingers? It's like the cart before the horse thing in other words.


What you suggest would be of some essence if 5 fingers that existed separately decided to unite and form a hand. Actually, this is not the way I look at it, it's the way science looks at it, in its dissecting of all things (hence the idea of separateness) and it's refusal to look at how things relate to the function of whole. In other words wholeness which, usually implies transcendence, is out of the question.


Since we know that the fingers could not have existed independently how can we discuss about the whole and the partial here?Well, what I'm suggesting is that we begin with the whole, and understand how everything (which it's comprised of) works in relation to it. And no, fingers do not exist independently from the hand.


As always I am trying hard but I don't get you.You seem again charmed by something but I cannot specify by what. :) Well, maybe it's just a language barrier here? :)


To be honest that was a sophistry but what you say seem close to pragmatism indeed. And here, I've been accused of being a wanna-be sophist as of late, but am really not up on that either?


The example of the frogs is a classic! Ribbet ribbet ... :p

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I would suggest that when anything has an impact on its environment, it has meaning, realized by the observer or no. Especially when you think in terms of how many things have to happen that we're unaware of, before anything can happen that we are aware of. So yes, everything is related meaningwise in that sense.

Well, but the chain of cause-effect/cause-effect/cause-effect still has to reach a mind before meaning of preceding cause/effects can be evaluated. And if we don't know how the causal chain evolved, then there are unknown potential meanings; but the meaning only applies to the parts of the chain we do know about.

In other words, if a causal-chain unfolds and no mind is there to evaluate it (at any point); it has no meaning; but it has potential meaning in that if a mind had been there to evaluate it, it would have evaluated meaning to it. But if a causal-chain has no impact, neither sensorily nor on the thought-landscape of a mind, then it is meaningless to that mind.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Radrook


There is no need for insultant name calling.
It tends to encourage the target of the insult to resort to the same tactic which when reported by an observant, would eventually lead to either one of the two participants getting temporarily or permanently banned.

It it is not to our advantage to resort to this type of thing.
Neither does it add anything to the discussion. In fact, it tends to terminate it even before it has gotten a chance to develop.

After all, who likes to feel obligated to read that kind of thing or to deal with a person capable of flinging that kind of comment at another person.

Not me! I just simply include the person in my list of persona-non grata and go by the very effective policy of out of sight out of mind which very neatly resolves the irritational issue imediately.


Unthinking trash :D

Notice the smiley? That is supposed to indicate that I am joking. If it didn't indicate that to you, watch me care.

[Z]

At this point, I'm thinking that discussion will be more fruitful with Iacchus once he graduates elementary school.

Until he can understand that science looks at parts and at the whole, and analyzes them in relationship to each other, and OFTEN declares that a part is irrelevant to the whole, then further discussion is irrelevant.

This is the key failure of 'intelligent' design - too many parts that are irrelevant to the whole.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what if its purpose was to serve existence? And there you have it folks. Without existence, there would be no sense of purpose. Which, is the way it is all the way up and down the scale. :D

In which case maybe what we need to ask, is who or what is responsible for existence, and the purpose thereof?

As I argues to Lifegazer, what if the creation of our Universe was accidental or an unintended consequence of something else.

The Grand Geometer finds that He has a Great and Urgent Need to make a Mighty Piss, and so he leaves his Drawing Table to go to the Heavenly Restroom. While He is creating Holy Urine, the great Cosmic Cat decides to stroll across the Drawing Table, and in this process spills the Bottle of Ink upon the Great Design.

What if this blot is the universe, and was unintended by the Creator?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sorry, but structure implies design. And how do you know there's not a catcher behind the plate, ready to catch the next curve ball pitched? Are you sure it's not all part of the same game plan?

And how do you know that The Ball was not grabbed from the Desk by the Mighty Crumb Snatcher and taken and dropped down the Sewer Grate and that the whole design is an accident?


Structure does not imply design, it implies consistancy of chaos!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

What if I wear a dress?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do ants understand the purpose and/or nature of human beings? Hardly. But neither does that imply human beings are without purpose or, ants for that matter.

Uh, yeah, so?

The purpose of a living being is to be alive.

What about a virus or a prion, they are life, yet they serve no 'pupose', the word 'purpose' on;y has the meaning assigned to it by a human or
"Why do males have nipples?", theye xist yet they serve no purpose! So deign implies existance without purpose!

Hmmm.

Meaning from nipples of males you can find , hmm?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Well. Meaning is a cause-effect type of relation. If you're not in a place to sense an effect on yourself; then the potential didn't become the actual.

Let's say that seeing a baby smile means you remember all the good times you had when your child was a baby, and that means you feel good. Well, if you're not there to see the baby when it smiles, then the potential meaning related to remembering your child as a baby does not become an actual meaning.

That is my meaning. :)

And a baby smiling often doesn't mean that the baby is happy either, it could be gas, or imitation.

Meaning is in the I of the beholder.

[Pixel42]

[QUOTE][i]Finely Tuned Universe
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1029595.htm /QUOTE]

Oh dear, there it is again.

I can only once again quote Douglas Adams' wonderful puddle analogy to illustrate the fallacy at the heart of this argument:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

To put it in (mostly) words of one syllable: The Universe is not the way it is so that we can exist as we do. We exist as we do because the Universe is the way it is.

Many current cosmological theories suggest a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes, in only a tiny fraction of which will the universal constants etc be suitable for life as we know it to arise. Which means that there will be an infinite number of such universes, as even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity.

That doesn't mean that the other 99.99% of Universes are lifeless, however. They may well contain completely different forms of life that could no more exist in our Universe than we could exist in theirs. Each would, however, fit into its own Universe as neatly as each puddle fits into its hole.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Pixel42


Oh dear, there it is again.

I can only once again quote Douglas Adams' wonderful puddle analogy to illustrate the fallacy at the heart of this argument:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

To put it in (mostly) words of one syllable: The Universe is not the way it is so that we can exist as we do. We exist as we do because the Universe is the way it is.

Many current cosmological theories suggest a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes, in only a tiny fraction of which will the universal constants etc be suitable for life as we know it to arise. Which means that there will be an infinite number of such universes, as even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity.

That doesn't mean that the other 99.99% of Universes are lifeless, however. They may well contain completely different forms of life that could no more exist in our Universe than we could exist in theirs. Each would, however, fit into its own Universe as neatly as each puddle fits into its hole.

Very well said! http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif

(of course, the tiniest fraction, 0, of infinity, is not infinity. Pick a number, any number. :D )

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Were the legs designed to fit the pants or, the pants designed to fit the legs? That's another thing, design implies protocol.

No, you sad misguided fool. Our legs fit into pants perfectly. But there were legs before pants. Obviously our legs were designed by a supreme being to one day fit into the pants of the future.

It's all part of the supreme beings grand plan for a universe full of pants.

I pity your shortsightedness.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Dancing David


What if I wear a dress?

Then ya better have some underwear on, ya pervert! :D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do the fingers serve the function of the hand or, does the hand serve the function of the fingers? Denis, hands do not exist without the fingers the same way fingers do not exist without hands, so, there is no point here in wondering who serves whom.

Actually, this is not the way I look at it, it's the way science looks at it, in its dissecting of all things (hence the idea of separateness) and it's refusal to look at how things relate to the function of whole. In other words wholeness which, usually implies transcendence, is out of the question. What are you talking about? This is not true. You confuse specialization with separatenes. I'd say that the nature of things dictate you the way you approach them.

Well, what I'm suggesting is that we begin with the whole, and understand how everything (which it's comprised of) works in relation to it. This is what we already do. And no, fingers do not exist independently from the hand. So, it's wrong to wonder who serves whom.
Well, maybe it's just a language barrier here? :) We can do that in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic,French, Ladino if it suits you better. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

Well, but the chain of cause-effect/cause-effect/cause-effect still has to reach a mind before meaning of preceding cause/effects can be evaluated. And if we don't know how the causal chain evolved, then there are unknown potential meanings; but the meaning only applies to the parts of the chain we do know about.

In other words, if a causal-chain unfolds and no mind is there to evaluate it (at any point); it has no meaning; but it has potential meaning in that if a mind had been there to evaluate it, it would have evaluated meaning to it. But if a causal-chain has no impact, neither sensorily nor on the thought-landscape of a mind, then it is meaningless to that mind. And if the Universe wasn't here as a whole, in other words non-existent, where would the meaning in that be?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Radrook


....




Do you plan on replying to anything I said in my original reply to your shotgun list of fine-tunings? Or will you simply ignore any debunkings and just assume the list is valid for future use?

Or, possibly, a combination of the two?

If you're going to reply to my post, reply to everything in it, not just a sentence or two. In particular, please reply to the big bold quote that I've provided from the talk.origins website. You should also read the talk.origins website that I provided. Any message that doesn't reply to everything in my post, point by point, will be considered an attempt avoid discussion, in which case, why are you even here?

(hope I don't sound too harsh, I just don't like people ignoring chunks of my post)

[Iacchus]

Yeah sweety, but what makes you so special? :p

Hey, might I suggest that if you feel there's something not being covered, that you start your own thread? And that way, maybe you can stop all the SHOUTING!!! and be a little less disruptive?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

As I argues to Lifegazer, what if the creation of our Universe was accidental or an unintended consequence of something else.

The Grand Geometer finds that He has a Great and Urgent Need to make a Mighty Piss, and so he leaves his Drawing Table to go to the Heavenly Restroom. While He is creating Holy Urine, the great Cosmic Cat decides to stroll across the Drawing Table, and in this process spills the Bottle of Ink upon the Great Design.

What if this blot is the universe, and was unintended by the Creator? A bit anthropomorphic don't you think? ;)

However, it does state in the Bible that we were created in His image doesn't it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

At this point, I'm thinking that discussion will be more fruitful with Iacchus once he graduates elementary school.

Until he can understand that science looks at parts and at the whole, and analyzes them in relationship to each other, and OFTEN declares that a part is irrelevant to the whole, then further discussion is irrelevant.

This is the key failure of 'intelligent' design - too many parts that are irrelevant to the whole. Or, perhaps the Universe is just too broad in its design in order for you to get the picture? So what if you don't understand how it all comes together, it's all here and accounted for isn't it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

What if I wear a dress? That, I'm afraid you're going to have to discuss with your taylor. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

No, you sad misguided fool. Our legs fit into pants perfectly. But there were legs before pants. Obviously our legs were designed by a supreme being to one day fit into the pants of the future.

It's all part of the supreme beings grand plan for a universe full of pants.

I pity your shortsightedness. You're obviously being facetious here, right?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah sweety, but what makes you so special?

The fact that I'm always right helps. :D

Hey, might I suggest that if you feel there's something not being covered, that you start your own thread? And that way, maybe you can stop all the SHOUTING!!! and be a little less disruptive?

Shouting requires two things: all CAPS and/or exclamation points. What you are referring to is not shouting, but emphasizing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Uh, yeah, so?

The purpose of a living being is to be alive.

What about a virus or a prion, they are life, yet they serve no 'pupose', the word 'purpose' on;y has the meaning assigned to it by a human or What doesn't kill us, only serves to strengthen us ....


"Why do males have nipples?", theye xist yet they serve no purpose! So deign implies existance without purpose!Perhaps, if nothing else, it serves to remind us that men are not altogether different from women and, that we all come from the same species?


Hmmm.

Meaning from nipples of males you can find , hmm?
Maybe it serves to heighten the homosexual experience? Or, would you suggest there's no meaning to that either?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What doesn't kill us, only serves to strengthen us ....


Perhaps, if nothing else, it serves to remind us that men are not altogether different from women and, that we all come from the same species?


Maybe it serves to heighten the homosexual experience? Or, would you suggest there's no meaning to that either?

You've ceased to make sense and have moved further into the realm of paranoid delusion. Keep up the good work. :D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by brian0918


You've ceased to make sense and have moved into the realm of paranoid delusion. Keep up the good work. :D

Errrr.... actually no. This is Iacchus' style. Maybe you wish to browse his on-line book and see where he is coming from.

Welcome to the forum BTW.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Errrr.... actually no. This is Iacchus' style. Maybe you wish to browse his on-line book and see where he is coming from.

Welcome to the forum BTW. Of course this is one of those very people who would imply there's no such thing as right and wrong. But, how could that be right? Ribbet ribbet ... :p

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Errrr.... actually no. This is Iacchus' style. Maybe you wish to browse his on-line book and see where he is coming from.

Welcome to the forum BTW.

Thanks. I used to post on the Bill Maher boards all the time. Then they switched locations and deleted all the old posts. Now it's just a lot of whining bastards. This seems like a nicer place for discussion, though ignorance is just as rampant as always.

[Iacchus]

By the way Cleo, this goes a long ways to express what I'm trying to say here ...


Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

Thanks. I used to post on the Bill Maher boards all the time. Then they switched locations and deleted all the old posts. Now it's just a lot of whining bastards. This seems like a nicer place for discussion, though ignorance is just as rampant as always. What is ignorance by the way, when there's no true meaning by which to gauge it? Or, are you suggesting we should all just assume the same things about life?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this is one of those very people who would imply there's no such thing as right and wrong. But, how could that be right? Ribbet ribbet ... :p

Of course there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, good and bad. Only opinions of what is right and what is wrong exist. The opinion that is shared by the most "powerful" (either the majority, the elite, or some unknown combination of a variety of groups) becomes the "right" and "wrong" for that population. We back up our version of "right" and "wrong" with a police force and judicial body.

The fact that there is no absolute right or wrong doesn't prevent me from forming opinions on the matter, mind you. It also doesn't suggest that I am somehow "justifying" the actions of folks like Hitler, because use of the term "justify" implies absolute right or wrong, since my views differ drastically from folks like Hitler.

I'm not sure if I have prevented you from taking different (and yet, ultimately futile) paths of attack, or provided you with paths to take. I'm sure, in any case, you will continue providing us with one hilariously sad post after another. :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

Of course there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, good and bad.This must be an absolute statement then, right? Or, would that be wrong? Am afraid this is a choice you're going to have to make. ;)

Is it possible that everything is relative to the absoluteness of the whole? In which case everything is absolute in that sense? ... including meaning?


Only opinions of what is right and what is wrong exist. The opinion that is shared by the most "powerful" (either the majority, the elite, or some unknown combination of a variety of groups) becomes the "right" and "wrong" for that population. We back up our version of "right" and "wrong" with a police force and judicial body.Oh, absolutely!


The fact that there is no absolute right or wrong doesn't prevent me from forming opinions on the matter, mind you. It also doesn't suggest that I am somehow "justifying" the actions of folks like Hitler, because use of the term "justify" implies absolute right or wrong, since my views differ drastically from folks like Hitler.Do you think it would be absolutely wrong for the body if you pointed a gun to your head and pulled the trigger? There would certainly be no (living) body after that would there?


I'm not sure if I have prevented you from taking different (and yet, ultimately futile) paths of attack, or provided you with paths to take. I'm sure, in any case, you will continue providing us with one hilariously sad post after another. :D And this is your own opinion of course, right? Why should I let it concern me then? Because you carry a bigger stick perhaps? Boy, we better watch out for this guy! :p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you think it would be absolutely wrong for the body if you pointed a gun to your head and pulled the trigger? There would certainly be no (living) body after that would there?
Wow. Your imagination is so impoverished you can't think of circumstances in which pulling the trigger is right?

You're aboard the first plane heading into the Trade Center. You have a gun, and more than enough bullets for all the hijackers. Certainly you should never ever pull the trigger. :rolleyes: Never. Ever. ever.

What paucity of reasoning, imagination and ethical thinking this evinces.

[Iacchus]

This was in reference to doing yourself in by the way. ;) In which case I ask, is destroying the body -- in any way, shape or form for that matter -- good for the body?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're obviously being facetious here, right?

I often ask myself that question about you, Iacchus.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way Cleo, this goes a long ways to express what I'm trying to say here ...


Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.



This would explain the appendix then. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

This would explain the appendix then. ;) All this suggests is that some things are more significant than others, but doesn't necessarily entail the lack of meaning. Obviously the appendix used to have some significance, right? It didn't just appear out of nowhere did it?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Then ya better have some underwear on, ya pervert! :D

You could stop lying on the floor! :p

[Dancing David]

The point I am trying tomake Iachuss is this, any meaning we assign to the universe is just a human thought imposed upon That Which Might or Might Not Be.

All the 'design' you see in the universe is 'contingent design' meaning(haha) in this case that the patterns we discern are there because of the random interactions of a very large number of energy particles.

When humans talk of 'design' it generaly implies a 'purposeful intent', such as "I wish to create art", "I wish to cloth myself", etc. The products of these intents are deliberate, when I look out at the universe, the patterns I generaly see are the patterns of 'contingent history' like a sand dune or a galaxy. They are most often not the patterns of 'purpose full intent' like a snake track or a beehive.

So which patterns do you feel indicate a purposeful intent?

The fact that apparent order exists, like soap bubbles, could be the result of an acacusal creation. Which is why I mentioned the Grand Geometer, the events leading to the creation could have been causal but still random and accidental (IE the Cat spills the Bottle of Ink, the Ball goes down the Sewer Grate).

So I ask why is there is a creation must it be deliberate, what patterns say that there is 'purposeful intent' in the 'design' of the universe?

[Z]

Notice Iacchus samples my post without getting the whole thing.

I was putting together definitions of what entails purpose and intelligent design so that I could then demonstrate how some things, like the appendix, refute those definitions.

However, and not unsurprisingly, he takes a partial definition and tries to use it to support his arguments.

Ya know, all this board needs now is a Bible-thumping homeopath!

Don't suppose any of the Three of You (Iacchus, Radrook, Irritating Ian) are also Homeopaths?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All this suggests is that some things are more significant than others, but doesn't necessarily entail the lack of meaning. Obviously the appendix used to have some significance, right? It didn't just appear out of nowhere did it?
And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Wudang

And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot.

The only thing it indicates is that you are totally ignorant of the biblical explanation or else are unable or unwilling to accept it because you have a very important agenda with which such an acceptance would strongly interfere and you really don't want that.

[Z]

Enlighten me, Rad... what IS the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus?

Oh, wait, you're going to use the 'Man was Perfect until he Sinned and suddenly became Imperfect' argument, right?

Or is there something more concrete?

I still fail to see how a 'Perfect' person could 'Sin' and therefore 'Fall' in the first place.

Have you ever addressed the theory that the entire Adam, Eve, & Lilith tale was an adaptation of Jewish myth, inserted into Bible text some time after Moses was dead and gone? I only remember this theory vaguely - I'll have to see what I can find on this one.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot. Okay, so what's the bloody awful problem wrong with the esophagus that I keep hearing about? Is it because somebody is prone to heart burn (acid reflux) and they haven't figured out how to eat properly yet? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Enlighten me, Rad... what IS the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus?


Have you ever addressed the theory that the entire Adam, Eve, & Lilith tale was an adaptation of Jewish myth, inserted into Bible text some time after Moses was dead and gone?

If you feel it is myth then do not refer to it as if it were fact by giving examples of anatomy presumably caused by what you admit you consider myth.

[Z]

Well, here's the summary with a pretty good rebuttal...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Of course, the rebuttal comes from a probably biased source, but it shows both the perceived problem with the esophagus, and why it may be the best available design after all.

Just found it - still studying it myself.

[Z]

Rad, I gotta ask.. what the heck are you saying? Where did I give examples of anatomy presumably caused by the fall of Adam? Rather, I wondered if you would explain the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus by your aforementioned use of the Eden myth.

Yes, I consider that a myth, and any 'flaw' in Human design as a result would be a myth too. In fact, that site I just found shows that humans aren't quite so flawed after all, and maybe your argument that flaws in human design were caused by the Fall might be falsified as well by this website.

Anyway, please, take a moment to look it over. Most logical explanations I've ever seen for appendices, eye designs, etc. Seems they're just fine after all.

EDIT - Please, Radrook, in spite of my obvious strong dislike of your thinking process and beliefs, please READ what I post rather than jump to hasty conclusions. I feel that we may yet be able to discuss on common ground.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Well, here's the summary with a pretty good rebuttal...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Of course, the rebuttal comes from a probably biased source, but it shows both the perceived problem with the esophagus, and why it may be the best available design after all.

Just found it - still studying it myself. My goodness, it's a wonder anything works at all, right? Anyone ever stop to consider that possibility? Or, are we just too busy "playing God" about the whole thing?

[richardm]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, here's the summary with a pretty good rebuttal...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Of course, the rebuttal comes from a probably biased source, but it shows both the perceived problem with the esophagus, and why it may be the best available design after all.



One problem I spotted immediately:


The only way to allow for a large respiration rate with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose. Not only would this look ugly, but the larger openings would present problems.


Look ugly? To Who? Obviously if all humans had bigger nostrils, bigger nostrils would be the norm and nobody would think anything about it.

As for the rest of his objections: Whales seem to manage okay with separate breathing and eating apparatus. (And some of them live in extremely cold areas, and exert themselves greatly)

Besides, the more important lesson is that the lungs currently occupy the space that a swimbladder would occupy in a fish. This would be closed off in a fish so wouldn't be a hindrance. As the swimbladder developed into a lung, the opening became more regularly open, causing the choking difficulty we see today. If the human body had been designed from the outset to have lungs, it wouldn't have been hard to find a solution to this problem.

Suppose you were developing a car from scratch, and were working on a fuel injection system. You came up with a neat solution, but it meant you had to reach over the open fuel trough to put things in the trunk. Sometimes you'd drop things into the trough and set fire to the car. You'd fix that problem, wouldn't you? You are, after all, an expert designer.

[Z]

No wonder at all. I still maintain that in a large enough (I used to say 'infinite', but I think there's a flaw there) universe, even minute probability becomes reality.

The incredibly small chance of biosystems working so well as they do is just a function of minute probability in a vast reality. After all, if there's only one chance in 200 million that a life form could evolve a heart suitable for pumping blood, certainly there's space enough in our universe to accomadate it.

That being said...

Makes me wonder how far out THERE we have to go before we find those silica-based life forms and creatures that breath through their skins (Macro creatures; I know, some small critters do).

[Z]

One problem I spotted immediately:

*snip*

Good point also... I'm sure I'll have to read and research this site for a few weeks before I feel qualified to judge one way or the other.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by richardm

If the human body had been designed from the outset to have lungs, it wouldn't have been hard to find a solution to this problem.


I just wanted to highlight this key point.

The rebuttal is written from the view of someone who takes the rest of the body as a given, not of doing the design from the start.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This was in reference to doing yourself in by the way. ;) In which case I ask, is destroying the body -- in any way, shape or form for that matter -- good for the body?
One word: surgery.

You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

One word: surgery.

You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions. Must be a God given talent I guess? ;)

But why the need to perform surgery, besides circumcision perhaps :D if, the body is healthy? And you know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Right?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But why the need to perform surgery, besides circumcision perhaps :D if, the body is healthy? And you know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Right? Come-on. Don't start now. And why circumcision is necessary?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Come-on. Don't start now. And why circumcision is necessary? To recognize man's inherent snake-nature perhaps and, to remind us of God's covenant? By the way, did you ever get a close look at one of those things? :D Also, did you know that in certain parts of the world the serpent is revered as a symbol of Eternity? Hey, it's all part of the overall design, right?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Must be a God given talent I guess? ;)

But why the need to perform surgery, besides circumcision perhaps :D if, the body is healthy? And you know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Right?
Paucity of imagination is a god-given talent? Right.

Ah, goody, at long last we can concede an exception. So, mutilation of the body is good, as far as you're concerned, for at least one instance. Onto the next, then. You have a ten-pound tumor pressing against your heart. Do you elect to cut or to die?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Paucity of imagination is a god-given talent? Right.

Ah, goody, at long last we can concede an exception. So, mutilation of the body is good, as far as you're concerned, for at least one instance. Onto the next, then. You have a ten-pound tumor pressing against your heart. Do you elect to cut or to die? The original idea had something to do with putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, in what was otherwise a healthy body. Now, would it do the body any good for you to destroy it in that sense?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The original idea had something to do with putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, in what was otherwise a healthy body. Now, would it do the body any good for you to destroy it in that sense?

Excuse me, but you expanded it here:
In which case I ask, is destroying the body -- in any way, shape or form for that matter -- good for the body?

Are you now retreating from this position?

[Z]

No, Iacchus is demonstrating his usual immature antics trying to toss God-references and design-references throughout his conversations. At this point, logical and reasonable discourse with him is no longer an option.

Iacchus, please, take your meds - your ADHD is rampant today.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Excuse me, but you expanded it here:

Are you now retreating from this position? No, the general idea being, whenever you do something destructive to what is otherwise a healthy body, is it for the good or, detriment of the body?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, Iacchus is demonstrating his usual immature antics trying to toss God-references and design-references throughout his conversations. At this point, logical and reasonable discourse with him is no longer an option.

Iacchus, please, take your meds - your ADHD is rampant today. Ad hominem ...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, the general idea being, whenever you do something destructive to what is otherwise a healthy body, is it for the good or, detriment of the body?

Except, of course, for circumcision, right? Was the object being modified somehow unhealthy?

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ad hominem ...

Of course, a fallacy doesn't mean he is wrong, just that his reasoning is flawed. Since your posts lack any reasoning whatsoever, it makes them difficult to attack, simply because you make so little sense.

We can make any comments we want about your character without dismissing your claims. For example: You are an idiot. This says nothing about your claims, just something about you. Therefore, no latin for you! :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

Of course, a fallacy doesn't mean he is wrong, just that his reasoning is flawed. Since your posts lack any reasoning whatsoever, it makes them difficult to attack, simply because you make so little sense.

We can make any comments we want about your character without dismissing your claims. For example: You are an idiot. This says nothing about your claims, just something about you. Therefore, no latin for you! :D So what is reason then, and please explain to me what makes you think you're the only one endowed with it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Except, of course, for circumcision, right? Was the object being modified somehow unhealthy? Do I believe circumcision is necessary? No. Although it is rather curious how this is the one thing God recommends we do. What was the reason for the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden? And doesn't it look the head of a serpent to you? And what did I say about the serpent being revered as a symbol of Eternity elsewhere? Now isn't that the least bit weird?

Oh yes, and what do serpents do? ... Shed their skins!

[Cleopatra]

Well Bill, look it that way. If you debate Iacchus for a while you will start appreciating Coghill's reasoning. :)

Hey Dennis, slowly, don't freak immediately those that are not familiar with your style .:D

I observe that you have changed your mind regarding the symbolism of circumcision though because here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288304&highlight=circumcision#post1870288304) you say that:
However one thing that comes to mind is that there's 22 chapters in the book of Revelation and, that it also corresponds to Justine (8) -- 14 X 1 + "8" = 22 -- thus signifying the honeymoon or, circumcision (synonymous with removing the bridal veil).

Back in that thread I pointed out to you that circumcision has nothing to do with bridal customs and such. Now since we talk about the same books and the same culture ( the biblical that is) what gives?

[Z]

My favorite line at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible so far:

God thinks Penises are really important. And he HATES foreskins.

(paraphrased)

aye aye aye...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Well Bill, look it that way. If you debate Iacchus for a while you will start appreciating Coghill's reasoning. :)

Hey Dennis, slowly, don't freak immediately those that are not familiar with your style .:DWhat, are you suggesting I come to these boards only to screw with people? Or, are you saying a little foreplay would be nice? :D

Who's Coghill by the way?


I observe that you have changed your mind regarding the symbolism of circumcision though because here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288304&highlight=circumcision#post1870288304) you say that:No, only women are given that prerogative. :p


Back in that thread I pointed out to you that circumcision has nothing to do with bridal customs and such. Now since we talk about the same books and the same culture ( the biblical that is) what gives? However, circumcision does represent the marriage covenant with God. And, as I read elsewhere, not that it matters really (that I only read about it), it's important that we circumcise the foreskins over our hearts.

[Dancing David]

I am sorry top see that people feel a need to insult Iachuss, why not ignore his posts rather than insult him? Wkat nuturing or honor is there in insult? If he insults first then fire away.


Iachuss: Why should a pattern imply design, the fact that a pattern exists could be a result of random forces(snowflake), random contingent history(sand dune), functional contigent history (evolution of life), purpose full intent (a building).

How do you see purpose ful intent in nature and where do you see it?

Soory, I asked before , and then people started baiting you. So in an effort to continue our conversation I ask again.

[Cleopatra]

I agree with you David. As someone who has debated Iacchus for sometime now I know that he is a worthy person regarless if it's difficult sometimes to know whether he is serious or not because I have caught him many times to toy others.:)

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, are you suggesting I come to these boards only to screw with people? Or, are you saying a little foreplay would be nice? :D You know what I am saying. ;)

Who's Coghill by the way?

Cogreslab (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39777),an interesting guy to have a drink with but not to discuss about science from what I have seen in that thread.He also sells woo-woo objects but he is well read.

However, circumcision does represent the marriage covenant with God. It's not a marriage Iacchus, it's God's promise that Jewish People's Seed will never be destroyed. If you want to play with the symbolism of numbers you might want to comment on why it's performed in the 8th day of a male's life.

In the Spiritual Marriage and in your book you give a different explanation that the one you gave to Bill so it's normal from my part to wonder.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Iachuss: Why should a pattern imply design, the fact that a pattern exists could be a result of random forces(snowflake), random contingent history(sand dune), functional contigent history (evolution of life), purpose full intent (a building).

How do you see purpose ful intent in nature and where do you see it?

Soory, I asked before , and then people started baiting you. So in an effort to continue our conversation I ask again. From the thread, Intelligence of Design (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42903) ...


Originally posted by Yahweh

There have been a great deal of individuals who have contemplated what intelligence is. It isnt necessarily a readily measurable quality, I'm sure of that. At the very least, I think intelligence, or at least one understanding of intelligence, is the ability to use reason to accomplish a purposeful goal.

Its origins, I would say, at the most basic level is merely what one gleans by observations of his environment.Orginally posted by Iacchus

It's certainly not possible without a brain though is it? And, since the brain is the by-product of its environment, then intelligence must be a by-product of the environment as well, right? So, doesn't that in effect say the environment is intelligent as well? Or else where does it come from?I don't know if this makes more sense or not but, it is getting closer to what you asked.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I agree with you David. As someone who has debated Iacchus for sometime now I know that he is a worthy person regarless if it's difficult sometimes to know whether he is serious or not because I have caught him many times to toy others.:)Yes, and when you're standing on top of the mountain and can see over the clouds, it's called transcendence. Say what? :D Just having a little fun. ;)


It's not a marriage Iacchus, it's God's promise that Jewish People's Seed will never be destroyed. If you want to play with the symbolism of numbers you might want to comment on why it's performed in the 8th day of a male's life.

In the Spiritual Marriage and in your book you give a different explanation that the one you gave to Bill so it's normal from my part to wonder. Originally posted by Cleopatra

I observe that you have changed your mind regarding the symbolism of circumcision though because here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288304&highlight=circumcision#post1870288304) you say that:


However one thing that comes to mind is that there's 22 chapters in the book of Revelation and, that it also corresponds to Justine (8) -- 14 X 1 + "8" = 22 -- thus signifying the honeymoon or, circumcision (synonymous with removing the bridal veil).Hey, did you know that if you took six pennys -- or, coins of equal diameter -- and arrange them so that they each penny touched the next, that you would have just enough room to place a seventh penny in the center? So what does that suggest to you? That god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day perhaps? ... i.e., in the center. And then, if you circumscribed a circle on the outside (representing the eighth day) what would you get? Ha! circumcision! Please refer to the illustration below ...


http://www.dionysus.org/images/7_colors.gif


Of course it should also be noted that the number 7 should be placed in the center and, that the number 4 should be placed between the 3 and the 5. However, did you know that the 4th commandment refers to the Sabbath which, is the 7th day? Hmm ...

[Cleopatra]

But do you know why circumcision is performed on the 8th day?

BTW Have you studied Kaballah at all?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

But do you know why circumcision is performed on the 8th day?

BTW Have you studied Kaballah at all? Nope, neither. Albeit I have heard something about the blood's abilty to coagulate on the 8th day.

By the way, when's the last time you've been to my forum? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums) It seems like ages. Was it something I said? Or, was it just too boring? (i.e., quiet).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do I believe circumcision is necessary? No. Although it is rather curious how this is the one thing God recommends we do. What was the reason for the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden? And doesn't it look the head of a serpent to you? And what did I say about the serpent being revered as a symbol of Eternity elsewhere? Now isn't that the least bit weird?

Oh yes, and what do serpents do? ... Shed their skins!
Which god? Allah? Rama? Shiva?

Your revered serpent, I'm afraid, is not revered in Genesis. I think you need to go back and read that. It also reappears later, as you may recall, in the other testament. Not revered there either. You need to get your story straight.

But again you show a paucity of imagination. Why not simply conclude this god has an inferiority problem and wants to make sure he's the biggest d**k around?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nope, neither. Albeit I have heard something about the blood's abilty to coagulate on the 8th day. I haven't heard that.

In Torah all references to the numbers have great significance.For example the number six represent the physical world which has four directions (north, south, east and west) plus up and down. The six days of creation, the six days of the work-week, also allude to the physical world.

Eight, on the other hand, transcends the physical world. For example, the eight-day miracle of Chanukah is beyond nature, surpassing the physical constraints of natural laws and standards. Eight represents a higher dimension of reality.

God's guarantee that Abraham's children would survive forever as a nation defies the laws of nature.

You see, you might have discovered America but some others have discovered it since the 15th ce. :)


By the way, when's the last time you've been to my forum? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums) It seems like ages. Was it something I said? Or, was it just too boring? (i.e., quiet). Oh not at all. I am just a person of habit , also you slip the way sand slips from the fingers and I don't want to nail you down but I cannot chase you either.

As I told you in another thread philosophy is something really beautiful because it's something very specific that exists to cover the needs of ordinary people who run ordinary lives. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Which god? Allah? Rama? Shiva?

Your revered serpent, I'm afraid, is not revered in Genesis. I think you need to go back and read that. It also reappears later, as you may recall, in the other testament. Not revered there either. You need to get your story straight.Just in case you missed something here ...


Originally posted by Iacchus
To recognize man's inherent snake-nature perhaps and, to remind us of God's covenant? By the way, did you ever get a close look at one of those things? :D Also, did you know that in certain parts of the world the serpent is revered as a symbol of Eternity? Hey, it's all part of the overall design, right? But again you show a paucity of imagination. Why not simply conclude this god has an inferiority problem and wants to make sure he's the biggest d**k around? Hey, there's no doubt that God is sexual, just look at the antics of Zeus or, the Kama Sutra.

[Cleopatra]

Iacchus don't pass like that the symbolism that Bill pointed out to you.
Why not simply conclude this god has an inferiority problem and wants to make sure he's the biggest d**k around?

This is common at least in 3 different cultures I can bring to my mind, just like that in the middle of the night. Don't dismiss it with such a light heart.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I haven't heard that.Well, actually it could have had something to with the immune system not being fully established. I don't recall exactly. It was something I saw on TV the other night. It could have been Seinfeld, when they were making a big fuss about getting ahold of someone to do a circumcision and everything went to hell. :D


In Torah all references to the numbers have great significance.For example the number six represent the physical world which has four directions (north, south, east and west) plus up and down. The six days of creation, the six days of the work-week, also allude to the physical world.

Eight, on the other hand, transcends the physical world. For example, the eight-day miracle of Chanukah is beyond nature, surpassing the physical constraints of natural laws and standards. Eight represents a higher dimension of reality.

God's guarantee that Abraham's children would survive forever as a nation defies the laws of nature.Yeah, that makes sense.


You see, you might have discovered America but some others have discovered it since the 15th ce. :)What, are you referring to me? :D


Oh not at all. I am just a person of habit , also you slip the way sand slips from the fingers and I don't want to nail you down but I cannot chase you either.What are you saying I don't give you anything to hold onto? Oh well, I'm kind of like that. ;)


As I told you in another thread philosophy is something really beautiful because it's something very specific that exists to cover the needs of ordinary people who run ordinary lives. :) When was this? Neither am I sure what you mean? Do you mean because it gives people something to enjoy?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Iacchus don't pass like that the symbolism that Bill pointed out to you.

This is common at least in 3 different cultures I can bring to my mind, just like that in the middle of the night. Don't dismiss it with such a light heart. What is common? The thing about the serpent being a bad thing?

[Cleopatra]

It seems that the time to put a full stop to this topic has arrived for me. As always, it's been a pleasure Iacchus.I enjoy multiple interpretations of the texts as long as such texts exist.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, that makes sense. It makes sense. The world around us can be described by mathematical equations that's why it makes sense. I remember I was dating a mathematician once and he sent me a long mathematical equation. It's was the mathematical description of a flower :) I suppose that a lot of sophistry was involved in that but still... If you know how something works this knowledge doesn't make it less beautiful.

Beauty has nothing to do with "magic" but this is the topic for another discussion.

When was this? Neither am I sure what you mean? Do you mean because it gives people something to enjoy? I mentioned that in the thread about the ethics of Plato. Philosophy is about everyday life's decisions, it shouldn't be something mystical or vague and it's none of religion's business and this comes from somebody who is not an atheist.

* ...And having said that she rides her flying carpet and disappears in the kykeon of the threads...*

[Dancing David]

Hi Iachuss,

So if you percieve a pattern how does that imply intent to design?

The 'our brains have intelligence and therefore there is design' is a no go for me because it is the product and contingent history and evolution.

[Iacchus]

"To anyone who considered that I would actually make a nude avatar, given previous controversy. I wouldn't.
To anyone who is using this bit of fun (yeah remember that?) to make or score points in other higher arguments in other threads and forums/fora (whatever you want to call the plural), You can get stuffed."~Reginald.Hey now, my dolphins don't got no clothes on, and what's so God awful about that? :D

http://www.dionysus.org/images/vba2282.gif

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Hi Iachuss,

So if you percieve a pattern how does that imply intent to design?

The 'our brains have intelligence and therefore there is design' is a no go for me because it is the product and contingent history and evolution. Would evolution have been possible without the immutable laws of nature (physics) to guide them? And, do you realize that intelligence is the by-product of structure? So why was there any structure to the Universe in the first place? ... If, in fact structure seems to convey intelligence?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would evolution have been possible without the immutable laws of nature (physics) to guide them?
Evolution is a consequence of the underlying laws, yes. They do not need to be immutable.
And, do you realize that intelligence is the by-product of structure?
Yes.
So why was there any structure to the Universe in the first place? ... If, in fact structure seems to convey intelligence?
When you ask "why," I assume you want a particular kind of "why." You want a purpose. Science cannot give you any such teleological answer. It can provide "why" answers in the sense of why does this phenomenon give rise to that phenomenon.

When you get to your last question, though, you go circular. You begin by asserting that intelligence implies structure. Then you end by asserting structure implies intelligence. This is fallacious reasoning.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would evolution have been possible without the immutable laws of nature (physics) to guide them? And, do you realize that intelligence is the by-product of structure? So why was there any structure to the Universe in the first place? ... If, in fact structure seems to convey intelligence?

Are you telling me the erosion on my property is part of some intelligent decision?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

Are you telling me the erosion on my property is part of some intelligent decision? If it follows the rules, I would say yes. ;)

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it follows the rules, I would say yes. ;)

It doesn't have the option to not to. We all must follow the rules. It's not up to any will to not obey them.

That's about as intelligent as giving multiple choice questions with only one 'option' to choose from.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that when decision are made from actual options that intelligence is involved.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

It doesn't have the option to not to. We all must follow the rules. It's not up to any will to not obey them.

That's about as intelligent as giving multiple choice questions with only one 'option' to choose from.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that when decision are made from actual options that intelligence is involved. But tell me, who's the one that created the rat maze then? Or, are you tring to tell that just happened arbitrarily?

[daenku32]

What option did it have?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But tell me, who's the one that created the rat maze then? Or, are you tring to tell that just happened arbitrarily?
Insert god into the equation here, and make the same demand:
"But tell me, who created god?"

For some reason, you fail to see how your intended answer simply begs the question. If the complexity of the universe can only be explained by its having had a creator, what does that say about the creator? Who created it? And who created that? And that?

You've answered nothing, you see.

(edited to add)
God gotta daddy!

[Dancing David]

Ah ha! You said rat maze , did you not Iachuss? I agree there may have been some creation deliberate or in deliberate of the universe.

But where in nature do you see a pattern similar to a rat maze, which would have a purposeful intent.

So far what i see is that certain animal and plant processes have some purpose if not intent , and there are some animals that definitly show intent.

But a sand dune does not seem to show intent it seems to show the 'contingent history' of all the sand particles, wind particles, water particles and gravity. And the fact that apparent structure can arise from random events says to me that there are patterns of contingent random interaction. I do not see purpose full structure to the universe.

Take evolution of life, random atoms interact to create random molecules, some molecules can catalyze other molecules, eventualy given totaly random processes, you get collectives of self catalyzing molecules, give them a memebrane and off they go. All random, all without pattern until you get to that point, then a set of molecules that can recreate itself has a very high probabilty of replicating.

I would argue there is no intent there just the random interaction of atoms of billions of years.

If there was design to the universe, what pattern would show that design?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Insert god into the equation here, and make the same demand:
"But tell me, who created god?"What are you suggesting, that the laws of physics are not immutable and set in place, and just happened to pop up of their own accord?


For some reason, you fail to see how your intended answer simply begs the question. If the complexity of the universe can only be explained by its having had a creator, what does that say about the creator? Who created it? And who created that? And that?It says he knows a lot more about it than we do. :D


You've answered nothing, you see.

(edited to add)
God gotta daddy! Goes to show that we only see what we want to see. So?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Ah ha! You said rat maze , did you not Iachuss? I agree there may have been some creation deliberate or in deliberate of the universe.

But where in nature do you see a pattern similar to a rat maze, which would have a purposeful intent.I'm trying to suggest that somebody has set the ground rules -- externally --which channels the outcome or event.


So far what i see is that certain animal and plant processes have some purpose if not intent , and there are some animals that definitly show intent.It doesn't matter. Things just don't exist in and of their own accord.


But a sand dune does not seem to show intent it seems to show the 'contingent history' of all the sand particles, wind particles, water particles and gravity. And the fact that apparent structure can arise from random events says to me that there are patterns of contingent random interaction. I do not see purpose full structure to the universe.However, the sand dune follows the rules which are contingent to the sand dune. The sand dune is not there arbitrarily.


Take evolution of life, random atoms interact to create random molecules, some molecules can catalyze other molecules, eventualy given totaly random processes, you get collectives of self catalyzing molecules, give them a memebrane and off they go. All random, all without pattern until you get to that point, then a set of molecules that can recreate itself has a very high probabilty of replicating.Without the ground rules, nothing would exist.


I would argue there is no intent there just the random interaction of atoms of billions of years.

If there was design to the universe, what pattern would show that design? The Universe is very much like the unfolding of a flower. ;) Hey, now didn't I say this once before? :D

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you suggesting, that the laws of physics are not immutable and set in place, and just happened to pop up of their own accord?

Assuming that with 'laws of physics' you mean strong force, weak force etc... I'd suggest that laws of physics came to be just as the erosion on my yard.

They didn't have any other option.

If the question of 'what was there first?' can't be answered, why would that matter to any of us?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

Assuming that with 'laws of physics' you mean strong force, weak force etc... I'd suggest that laws of physics came to be just as the erosion on my yard.

They didn't have any other option.

If the question of 'what was there first?' can't be answered, why would that matter to any of us? Hey, sounds like something which has already been "predefined" to me. The only question is, by whom? Or, are saying it's not possible to predefine what the mice will to do by constructing a maze?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm trying to suggest that somebody has set the ground rules -- externally --which channels the outcome or event.

What if the ground rules are causal but random? Say that the gradient which creates the electromagnetic force is like a slop of sand that slides, the angle of the slope could be very arbitrary, it could be shallow or it could be steep.
In Alan Guth or string theory they talk about how the potential forces of the nascent universe may have been changing rapidily and just happened to freeze at the moment of creation. therefore the 'constants' we have might have been slightly different, speculatively, and therefore mutable.
It doesn't matter. Things just don't exist in and of their own accord.
Give me any scenario for creation and I can come up with an acausal or random version where creation was unintended.
However, the sand dune follows the rules which are contingent to the sand dune. The sand dune is not there arbitrarily.
They are causal but not deterministic, given a knowledge of all the forces and positions, you still can not be predicting the outcome, isn't that cool. The patterns arise from chaos but are not determined they are contingent.

Without the ground rules, nothing would exist.

Mere assertion, for all we know the forces of nature could be randomly fluctuating, as long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other.


The Universe is very much like the unfolding of a flower. ;) Hey, now didn't I say this once before? :D

Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.

:D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you suggesting, that the laws of physics are not immutable and set in place, and just happened to pop up of their own accord?
I suggested nothing about immutability. Please read what I wrote. But yes, I am suggesting that they popped up of their own accord, or from more fundamental underlying principles. But that hardly matters for the point I was making.

You are question begging and, for reasons unknown, completely blind to that fact. You insist god must be behind it all. Why? Because, you insist, design implies a designer. Run with your own logic just one step further and you see that, for the same reason, god must have had a designer. The infinite regress is painfully obvious, but, I'm sure, will continue to elude you.

It says he knows a lot more about it than we do. :D
No, it says you presume the proposition you are trying to prove.


Goes to show that we only see what we want to see. So?
Listen, make a list of the reasons you think the universe must have had a designer. Then apply that list to your supposed designer. Why doesn't it need a designer? And that designer? And so on. God gotta daddy. This is the inevitable logical conclusion if you keep working your same logic at each layer. But you cranks never see that because your goal is not to get to the truth. Your goal is always to prove what you already believe to be the truth. You stop there. Apply your sophomoric logic to god, my friend, and you watch the story crumble.

But I won't hold my breath, because your goal has never been to get to the truth.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I suggested nothing about immutability. Please read what I wrote. But yes, I am suggesting that they popped up of their own accord, or from more fundamental underlying principles. But that hardly matters for the point I was making.Even more fundamental than the fundamentals themselves? Exactly!


You are question begging and, for reasons unknown, completely blind to that fact. You insist god must be behind it all. Why? Because, you insist, design implies a designer. Run with your own logic just one step further and you see that, for the same reason, god must have had a designer. The infinite regress is painfully obvious, but, I'm sure, will continue to elude you.Why do I need to insist or, presume anything? Do I need to presume that 1 + 1 = 2?


No, it says you presume the proposition you are trying to prove. A very interesting word, "presume." So, you presume that I'm the one making the presumption, right? :D If you're looking for infinite regression, you've got it!


Listen, make a list of the reasons you think the universe must have had a designer. Then apply that list to your supposed designer. Why doesn't it need a designer? And that designer? And so on. God gotta daddy. This is the inevitable logical conclusion if you keep working your same logic at each layer. But you cranks never see that because your goal is not to get to the truth. Your goal is always to prove what you already believe to be the truth. You stop there. Apply your sophomoric logic to god, my friend, and you watch the story crumble.And yet it's not a matter of must or, supposing anything. Unless of course I'm trying to work backwards which, apparently is what I need to do with you. Hey, I can't help it if some people can't think in the forward sense.


But I won't hold my breath, because your goal has never been to get to the truth. Yeah, and don't you wish everyone was standing in your shoes? ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Even more fundamental than the fundamentals themselves? Exactly!
No. Please read what I wrote.
Why do I need to insist or, presume anything? Do I need to presume that 1 + 1 = 2?
Please stop the red herrings and directly address the point I made.
A very interesting word, "presume." So, you presume that I'm the one making the presumption, right? :D If you're looking for infinite regression, you've got it!
More red herrings.
And yet it's not a matter of must or, supposing anything. Unless of course I'm trying to work backwards which, apparently is what I need to do with you. Hey, I can't help it if some people can't think in the forward sense.
You are being ridiculous and continue to distract from the point I made.
Yeah, and don't you wish everyone was standing in your shoes? ;)
When you ever decide your goal is to get to the truth, then please astound us all by actually addressing my points.

Here is the propositon once again: You claim that the evidence of the universe, its wondrous complexity and all, indicates design. You further claim the existence of design indicates a designer. You conclude god. Of course, god is also wondrously complex and would seem to indicate design no less than we. Therefore, using your own sophomoric logic, god gotta daddy.

There is, of course, no way out of your dilemma except, of course, to deflect away from the very issue I raised. Which, of course, explains your sophomoric behavior.

[Iacchus]

By the way, do you realize that yours, mine and everyone else's existence is merely a matter of what we presume it to be? So keep your hands off my presumptions please! :D

[scribble]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
No. Please read what I wrote.
...
Please stop the red herrings and directly address the point I made.
...
More red herrings.
...
You are being ridiculous and continue to distract from the point I made.
...
When you ever decide your goal is to get to the truth, then please astound us all by actually addressing my points.



Hahaha... damn, that all looks familiar.

I see you've met our budding sophist, eh Bill?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, do you realize that yours, mine and everyone else's existence is merely a matter of what we presume it to be? So keep your hands off my presumptions please! :D
More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy. Nonsense!!!

[Z]

That's the point, Iacchus - your arguments are nonsense.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the universe was created, save that it exists - and this is not evidence at all.

But if you insist logically that the universe had a creator, then you must further carry logic to invoke a creator of the creator, and so forth.

This is a known situation in mathematics - any system in mathematics can only be fully described by using a system one order higher than the system being described. (I may have that statement off a bit, but isn't that the gist of it?)

Now, I believe in God - and if I were to assert with certainty that God Created the Universe - which I have no doubt is the case, based entirely on faith - then I would point out that God exists in a state of being which is outside logic, reason, and sense. God being immaterial, illogical, and unscientific, needs not follow logical systems.

In other words, Deity's state of existence is such that physical laws, constants, and logical reasoning have no meaning - the idea that God exists OUTSIDE of time, space, dimension - Outside of Logic.

However, this further implies that no experience WITHIN time, space, dimension, or logic can detect or infer God properly.

At least, that's MY theory - YMMV.

The only reason I argue with you, Iacchus, is that you try semantic games and logical juggling to invoke God as Creator, and imbue intelligent design to the Universe. In my humble opinion, God lacks the sort of intelligence you and I are aware of, and made the Universe quite incidentally, quite accidentally perhaps, with no design or intent involved. God may even be an idiot savant - or worse, some sort of hyper-animal, driven by instinct alone. Who can say? But trying to use logic, reasoning, and semantic games to convince others of the existence of God offends my sensibilities, so I stand against you in this.

That, and your arguments are awfully immature.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nonsense!!!


I am not sure if I must report that under the new rules but instead I am asking you to control yourself, Iacchus. If you don't wish to address other people's posts just ignore them or declare that you don't wish to discuss with them. Don't admonish posters for spending time in replying to your posts please.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am not sure if I must report that under the new rules but instead I am asking you to control yourself, Iacchus. If you don't wish to address other people's posts just ignore them or declare that you don't wish to discuss with them. Don't admonish posters for spending time in replying to your posts please. Jeeze, and where have you been lately? Did you know that this guy has continued to "admonish" me about how my posts are so full nonsense for the past ten or twelve posts now? And then for me to finally come right out and say that he was full of nonsense makes me the bad guy? No.

You see the problem is that I don't agree with him, and probably never will ... Unless of course he agrees with me first. Ha ha ha! :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nonsense!!!
Stating foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant. Shouting foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant and boorish.

Please address my points.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

What if the ground rules are causal but random? Say that the gradient which creates the electromagnetic force is like a slop of sand that slides, the angle of the slope could be very arbitrary, it could be shallow or it could be steep. Yes, and which rules would allow this to do so? There still has to be something definitive there in order to determine this.


In Alan Guth or string theory they talk about how the potential forces of the nascent universe may have been changing rapidily and just happened to freeze at the moment of creation. therefore the 'constants' we have might have been slightly different, speculatively, and therefore mutable.Even so, what rules would allow that to happen?


Give me any scenario for creation and I can come up with an acausal or random version where creation was unintended.Did you know that everything tends to lay where it falls? And if you don't disturb it, it tends to stay that way? So what does that have to do with anything occurring at random? In other words how can you break the mold once it's set? And once set, what's it got to do with anything occurring at random?


They are causal but not deterministic, given a knowledge of all the forces and positions, you still can not be predicting the outcome, isn't that cool. The patterns arise from chaos but are not determined they are contingent.Not so.


Mere assertion, for all we know the forces of nature could be randomly fluctuating, as long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other.Oh, so long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other? Hmm ... Could that mean there's yet another set of rules involved here?


Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.Are you saying evolution doesn't follow the course which is set by the rules?


Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.It still follows the design which allows it to do so

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Stating foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant. Shouting foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant and boorish.Is this supposed to mean something?


Please address my points. I just did. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this supposed to mean something?

Yes - it means you're fool.

I just did. ;)

You never did - all you did was shout "Nonsense" in bold red text in response to the following passage from BillHoyt.

More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

Please, since you claim to have "addressed" his points - please show us where.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Yes - it means you're fool.Ad hominem.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ad hominem.

Based on good evidence - you state foolish arguments, refuse to debate and you refuse to address points, like here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42922), here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42820&perpage=40&pagenumber=4), here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42777&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) or here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42700) - and even in this thread. Yes, you are a fool.

Nice going on ignoring the other half of my post containing the passage from BillHoyt that you continue to ignore and assert that you have "addressed" his points even though you have not done so - you are so predictable.

[Iacchus]

Or, perhaps Billy Boy didn't start out on a the right footing here. For example these are from his first six or seven posts ... And, while there's a gap between some of the posts, because they don't all include ad hominems, I can assure you they were more than condescending enough to make up for it. I really got the impression that he thought I was stupid or something? ;)


Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870529370#post1870529370)
Don't wade out to the deep end of the kiddie pool without your swimmies on.
Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530403#post1870530403)
Wow. Your imagination is so impoverished you can't think of circumstances in which pulling the trigger is right?
Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530942#post1870530942)
You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions.
Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530982#post1870530982)
Paucity of imagination is a god-given talent? Right.
Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870532006#post1870532006)
But again you show a paucity of imagination. Why not simply conclude this god has an inferiority problem and wants to make sure he's the biggest d**k around? By the way, did you notice whether I had any difficulty replying to Dancing David above?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Based on good evidence - you state foolish arguments, refuse to debate and you refuse to address points, like here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42922), here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42820&perpage=40&pagenumber=4), here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42777&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) or here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42700) - and even in this thread. Yes, you are a fool.Ad hominem.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, perhaps Billy Boy didn't start out on a the right footing here. For example these are from his first six or seven posts ... And, while there's a gap between some of the posts, because they don't all include ad hominems, I can assure you they were more than condescending enough to make up for it. I really got the impression that he thought I was stupid or something? ;)


Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870529370#post1870529370)

Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530403#post1870530403)

Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530942#post1870530942)

Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870530982#post1870530982)

Ad hominem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870532006#post1870532006)
By the way, did you notice whether I had any difficulty replying to Dancing David above?
Puh-leeze. You dance around the question with me. Then you tell Rabbi Satan you did answer me. Now you tell us you had cause not to answer because I insulted you. You simply have no response to the question, so you duck behind these contradictory and weenie claims. If you can't play with the big dogs, get back on the porch.

[Iacchus]

Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either. ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either. ;)
I take your refusal to answer as an admission that you cannot answer. Your logic's fatal flaw is clear: if rules, laws, regularities or complexity imply a designer, then god gotta daddy. Your logic fails because it places you in an infinite regress. It demands a god for the universe, a god for the god, and a god for god's god, and blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof.

I challenge you now, as the existence of the JREF forum challengers all comers, to think. You have made assertions. I have challenged them. Think and respond.

Not fallacious appeals to pity. Not fallacious red herrings. Logic.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am afraid your condescending attitude is not going to work here either. ;)

Ad hominems have no bearing on the factual correctness and validity of an argument - It works both ways Iacchus - address the points - in this thread and in the four other threads that I debated to you with.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I take your refusal to answer as an admission that you cannot answer. Your logic's fatal flaw is clear: if rules, laws, regularities or complexity imply a designer, then god gotta daddy. Your logic fails because it places you in an infinite regress. It demands a god for the universe, a god for the god, and a god for god's god, and blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof.God gotta daddy? ... What's that supposed to mean?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof? ... What's that supposed to mean?


I challenge you now, as the existence of the JREF forum challengers all comers, to think. You have made assertions. I have challenged them. Think and respond.

Not fallacious appeals to pity. Not fallacious red herrings. Logic. Appeals to pity? ... What's that supposed to mean?

So let me ask you something? Do you think your attempts at bullying and belittling me is going to get you anywhere? That kind of attitude speaks for itself too doesn't it? So, if you continue to throw this is kind of garbage out at me at first, what exactly is it that you want me to reply to? Or, maybe I'm supposed to pretend like it doesn't mean anything?

[BillHoyt]

Blah blah blah woof woof woof. Grow up.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
God gotta daddy? ... What's that supposed to mean?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, woof, woof, woof? ... What's that supposed to mean?

May be you might want to read BillHoyts posts further up first - If you haven't already (Which I really doubt you have).

Appeals to pity? ... What's that supposed to mean?

...You don't even understand what you're doing?

So let me ask you something? Do you think your attempts at bullying and belittling me is going to get you anywhere?

Do you think your attempts to dance around the points and issues are going to go unnoticed?

That kind of attitude speaks for itself too doesn't it?

Speaks for what? It has no bearing about the validity of an argument.

So, if you continue to throw this is kind of garbage out at me at first, what exactly is it that you want me to reply to?

To address our points, instead of ignoring and dancing around the issues, which you are doing now.

Or, maybe I'm supposed to pretend like it doesn't mean anything?

More like know nothing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Ad hominems have no bearing on the factual correctness and validity of an argument - It works both ways Iacchus - address the points - in this thread and in the four other threads that I debated to you with. You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.

By the way, one thing I've found is that I have to keep repeating myself to you, and I don't particularly like that. It's too bad that I don't agree with you is what the problem is.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.

It's not about you stating your opinions - it's about you dodging the point and issues and refusing to answer them - just like you are now, with the point that I posed to you that the manner of an argument has no bearing on the factual correctness of the argument.

By the way, one thing I've found is that I have to keep repeating myself to you, and I don't particularly like that. It's too bad that I don't agree with you is what the problem is.

It's a simple problem - you not answering the points - I'm curious, are you too blind to see that you are refusing to answer the points, or are you trying to falteringly save your own skin?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You really don't get it do you? The most anyone can ever hope to do on this forum is state their own opinion. And you can't accuse me of not having done that. If you don't like what I have to say, find somebody else to debate with.
I'm afraid it is you who don't get it. This forum is run by JREF, a skeptical organization. JREF is not interested in opinions about reality. It is interested in evidence. It is particularly interested in evidence for claims of the paranormal.

You have been citing many aspects of the universe as evidence of god. I have challenged that claim by pointing out the infinite regress that inheres in your reasoning.

I don't give a sot about your opinion. I want you to defend your claim here by explaining why god ain't gotta daddy.

[BillHoyt]

God gotta daddy.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, sounds like something which has already been "predefined" to me. The only question is, by whom? Or, are saying it's not possible to predefine what the mice will to do by constructing a maze?

The erosion on my yard was not predefined by a 'whom'.

The same nature that caused natures laws caused the erosion.

Since you don't have a clue of what in the physical world came first, how do you know something wasn't caused by a natural act?

Tell me. What was there before laws of physics? What was the very first building block of the physical world that derived everything else? I know you want to say God, but I'm looking for the missing link here. Where is the ball God set in motion that eventually caused the erosion on my yard. Sure you must know since you claim that it certainly must have been designed.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

It's not about you stating your opinions - it's about you dodging the point and issues and refusing to answer them - just like you are now, with the point that I posed to you that the manner of an argument has no bearing on the factual correctness of the argument.Well it could very well make a difference with somebody getting a fat lip too.


It's a simple problem - you not answering the points - I'm curious, are you too blind to see that you are refusing to answer the points, or are you trying to falteringly save your own skin? Am I here to answer everything to your satisfaction? No. And you have no right demanding that I do.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well it could very well make a difference with somebody getting a fat lip too.

So you admit that it has no bearing on the factual correctness of an argument? Good - I hope you won't try to weasel out of answering points because of this excuse in the future.

Am I here to answer everything to your satisfaction? No. And you have no right demanding that I do.

You make a claim, we demand an aswer - you don't have any answer, this invalidates your claim. Simple logic, no?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'm afraid it is you who don't get it. This forum is run by JREF, a skeptical organization. JREF is not interested in opinions about reality. It is interested in evidence. It is particularly interested in evidence for claims of the paranormal.I get it just fine. This is a philosophical forum. Not the Spanish Inquisition. If they don't want people discussing philosophy here, then perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. Not my problem!


You have been citing many aspects of the universe as evidence of god. I have challenged that claim by pointing out the infinite regress that inheres in your reasoning.And what were you saying about your crappy attitude here?

I don't give a sot about your opinion. I want you to defend your claim here by explaining why god ain't gotta daddy. And when I see you stranded on the side of the road on a cold wet rainy miserable night, you can watch me drive right on by!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You make a claim, we demand an aswer - you don't have any answer, this invalidates your claim. Simple logic, no? No. In some places that would be akin to rape, and you could be sent to jail for that.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I get it just fine. This is a philosophical forum. Not the Spanish Inquisition. If they don't want people discussing philosophy here, then perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. Not my problem!

Then would you agree that discussion centers around, you know, actually "discussing" the points and addressing the issues?

Oh wait, you were dodging those.

And what were you saying about your crappy attitude here?

Another dodge. Answer the point.

And when I see you stranded on the side of the road on a cold wet rainy miserable night, you can watch me drive right on by!

Yet another dodge, with nothing pertaining to the topic at hand whatsoever. Why don't you defend your claim?

No.

Ah, so you admit that you won't (Or rather cannot) back up your claims?

In some places that would be akin to rape, and you could be sent to jail for that.

Ah, I see, now you are comparing me to a rapist because we demand that you answer questions to your claim? Please, explain how the analogy fit.

Yet another dodge.

[BillHoyt]

God gotta daddy.

This is the result of your claims. Quit dodging and deflecting and tell us why it ain't so.

[Iacchus]

All your badgering tells me is that you've already made up your own mind and really have no interest in what I have to say. You've already drawn your own conclusions. Why should I bother?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All your badgering tells me is that you've already made up your own mind and really have no interest in what I have to say.

No! Please! We're really interested! Just simply back up your claim - hell, we'd be glad to finally have confirmation that there is a God (And subsequently an afterlife).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

The erosion on my yard was not predefined by a 'whom'.

The same nature that caused natures laws caused the erosion.With respect to the laws of physics, everything has been "predefined." Even the laws of physics themselves. Hmm ... While I'm sure there's even a principle (no doubt) behind "free will."


Since you don't have a clue of what in the physical world came first, how do you know something wasn't caused by a natural act?And how do you know that I don't know God exists? That would make a big difference if He did wouldn't it?


Tell me. What was there before laws of physics? What was the very first building block of the physical world that derived everything else? I know you want to say God, but I'm looking for the missing link here. Where is the ball God set in motion that eventually caused the erosion on my yard. Sure you must know since you claim that it certainly must have been designed. Like I said in another thread, I can acknowledge that the sky is blue and observe the clouds go by, but that doesn't require that I have a PHD in physics does it? Why is it so necessary for me to get so technical? I can acknowledge a horse for being a horse can't I?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All your badgering tells me is that you've already made up your own mind and really have no interest in what I have to say. You've already drawn your own conclusions. Why should I bother?
Of course you can't defend it. It is indefensible. You cannot stop at god. If you argue that the complexity of the universe or its design implies a designer, then that designer is also complex or apparently designed, and that designer must have had a designer. And that designer a designer.

Your logic is flimsy. It demands that god gotta daddy. You recognize the problem and need to rush us all out of here in the vain hope nobody else has recognized the problem.

I assure you, they have.

[Iacchus]

Hey it either is or it isn't, and whether I can prove to you or not (prove it to myself perhaps?), is not going to change that.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey it either is or it isn't, and whether I can prove to you or not (prove it to myself perhaps?), is not going to change that.
:dl:

Truly a waste of time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

:dl:

Truly a waste of time. Yeah, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. ;)

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said in another thread, I can acknowledge that the sky is blue and observe the clouds go by, but that doesn't require that I have a PHD in physics does it? Why is it so necessary for me to get so technical? I can acknowledge a horse for being a horse can't I?

So I shouldn't need to have a diploma from a Creationist school or 'Evolutionist' school to declare Creationism (or ID) to be a sham, and to believe that nature keeps reinventing itself without any help from a spiritual plain.

Thanks.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. ;)

I'll be here long after you've been laughed off the stage. On the other hand, you could actually try to learn something here about the nature of reason, evidence and logic. But to do that, you need first to get motivated by a search for the truth.

[Iacchus]

The truth is as plain as the nose on your face. That is if you've got a face, or a nose? ;) Sorry, am just trying to be specific. :D

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The truth is as plain as the nose on your face. That is if you've got a face, or a nose? ;) Sorry, am just trying to be specific. :D

What Truth are you talking about? That your "Swedenborg" God exists? That your "interpretation" of a fairy tale is the "one true" interpretation?

Please - we've been through this in another thread, which you quickly ducked out of.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

No! Please! We're really interested! Just simply back up your claim - hell, we'd be glad to finally have confirmation that there is a God (And subsequently an afterlife). I don't know, do you think we should subject God to so much scrutiny? You know, maybe this isn't the best way to go about it? And while I'm sure God doesn't mind us asking questions (if He does exist), don't you think it would be a better if we weren't so demanding about it? Hey, maybe there's actually a set of protocols involved, you know like the protocols involved when we get on the Internet? (if you have dial-up). And, if you don't follow the protocols, why should you expect to make a connection?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

What Truth are you talking about? That your "Swedenborg" God exists? That your "interpretation" of a fairy tale is the "one true" interpretation?Hey, I can acknowledge that I have five fingers on my hand. Can you? There you have it. Simple as that.


Please - we've been through this in another thread, which you quickly ducked out of. Quickly huh? Now why don't you go back and see how many posts I posted, and then tell me how quickly I backed out.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I can acknowledge that I have five fingers on my hand. Can you? There you have it. Simple as that.

Yes, because we can verify it, it's called evidence. As usual, more strawmen.

Whereas with Swedenborg's god? Oh, we have this interpretation, which is obviously true, along with 34,000 others, not to mention the various other main stream religions today, with all their interpretations, not to mention the dead ones, but they're all false, of course. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quickly huh? Now why don't you go back and see how many posts I posted, and then tell me how quickly I backed out.

Oops - meant to say "quietly".

In anycase - you simply ducked out of that thread.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

So I shouldn't need to have a diploma from a Creationist school or 'Evolutionist' school to declare Creationism (or ID) to be a sham, and to believe that nature keeps reinventing itself without any help from a spiritual plain.

Thanks. Hey, all I'm asking is why do expect me to know everything? Because if I did I would be God, and I probably wouldn't be here talking to you about it. :p

[Z]

This is getting WAAAY out of hand, and frankly (if I were a moderator) I'd close the post just to curtail further pointless argument.

You see, Iacchus, one of the problems we experience with you, Rad, LifeGazer, and some others is that you come here with an opinion that you THINK will bear up under scrutiny, yet when it fails to do so, you 1) ignore the points made against you, 2) resort to nonsense, 3) try changing the subject, and finally 4) pull the "I'm not here to debate" card (sometimes seen as the "It's my opinion" card). It's becoming a predictable pattern.

Meanwhile, having enflamed a debate, those who oppose you want some simple behaviour from you - they want you to address the points made to you, and they want you to see the logical flaws of your arguments. Further, they want you to concede that you might be wrong, based on their arguments.

So when you post something like, "The Universe got a designer" you need to be prepared to defend this post, as well as answer the question, "Then does God got a daddy?"

At any rate, constant repitition and shouting and name-calling, perpetuated by both sides of the argument, leads nowhere. I ask you as decent human beings to take a breath, count to ten, smoke a doobie, or whatever you do to relax, then start fresh with the original statements - Or, if you don't want to argue about it, Iacchus, just say so one last time and then butt out.

[Iacchus]

What if I'm not the one who's in error? All I see is majority rules here. It hasn't nothing to do with the truth of anything.

[Z]

You may not be the one who is in error. However, making a claim at this forum entails defending this claim - which means facing the logic and arguments aimed at you, as well as posting your own logic and arguments.

What we want, however, is for you to either refute the argument/logic with a reasonable answer and/or better logic, or admit a failing in your logic.

Me? I believe in Deity, yet fully admit there is no logical reason to do so. This is why you won't see lengthy threads with skeptics battling against me - because I admit a failing in logic with my assertation. And I don't even bother with my more irrational beliefs - like the belief that Dragons (in the classical Chinese sense) still exist, or my belief in genetic memory (by which I refer to the idea that memory is somehow coded and transferred from parent to child, to some small degree) because I am not equipped to logically debate these beliefs, and understand that they by no means hold up under scrutiny.

Over at H'pathy, I was actually beginning to believe there may be something to this form of healing - but only after one remarkable homeopath explained that the effectiveness of homeopathy derives entirely from faith. Of course, both he and I were blasted, but the point is, I was willing to concede a change in my beliefs based on a logical argument that was carefully debated by someone willing to give and take.

This is the problem with you, Iacchus - you want things one-sided, and here, you have to consider both sides to be respected.

So far, both you and Irritating Ian have no respect from us. Rad has at least a minimum of my respect - I have high hopes that Rad may even become a decent thinker as a result of his involvement here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

So far, both you and Irritating Ian have no respect from us. Rad has at least a minimum of my respect - I have high hopes that Rad may even become a decent thinker as a result of his involvement here. Hey, I understand you feel the need to speak for everyone here. Sorry, it ain't gonna work. ;)

By the way, did you know that 6 x 6 x 6 = 216? Yours was the 216th post.

So we have the Dragon (zaayrdragon?), the Beast out of the Sea, and the False Prophet. Hmm ... Verrdy interesting. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What if I'm not the one who's in error?
Then since you're not in error, please, prove it to us that you're not in error and that we are erring.

All I see is majority rules here. It hasn't nothing to do with the truth of anything
Where did we assert that because there is majority rule here that it has a bearing on factual validity?

Hey, I understand you feel the need to speak for everyone here. Sorry, it ain't gonna work. ;)
Of course not, seeing as how you ignore everything to the contrary.

By the way, did you know that 6 x 6 x 6 = 216? Yours was the 216th post.
Lets see:

Yours was the 217th post - 7 - 1 = 6
2 more Sixs added side by side to that = 666!
Wow, who woulda thunk :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


More numerology nonsense.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Yes, because we can verify it, it's called evidence. As usual, more strawmen.

Whereas with Swedenborg's god? Oh, we have this interpretation, which is obviously true, along with 34,000 others, not to mention the various other main stream religions today, with all their interpretations, not to mention the dead ones, but they're all false, of course. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Life is a journey. It doesn't happen all at once.


Oops - meant to say "quietly".

In anycase - you simply ducked out of that thread. Would it be correct to force open the petals of a flower? If you don't wish to destroy it? If you were so keenly interested in what I had to say, you should have already begun your own research (I provided the links) and stopped pestering me about it. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Life is a journey. It doesn't happen all at once.

Evasion noted. Answer the question.

Would it be correct to force open the petals of a flower? If you don't wish to destroy it? If you were so keenly interested in what I had to say, you should have already begun your own research (I provided the links) and stopped pestering me about it. ;)

More evasion - answer the points in the other thread.

[Iacchus]

You expect too much! Things will happen in their own sweet time. Like it or not!

[Z]

Yep, I'm THE dragon... THE antichrist.

How's that for conceit?

So... assuming I am the Devil (and what proof do you have otherwise)... what would that mean to you?

(since I don't believe in the Devil, it means nothing to me personally)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You expect too much! Things will happen in their own sweet time. Like it or not!

More evasion.

Will you or will you not answer the points in the other thread? So I can better spend my time than debating with creduloids and play Natural-Selection (A Half Life mod).

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yep, I'm THE dragon... THE antichrist.

How's that for conceit?

So... assuming I am the Devil (and what proof do you have otherwise)... what would that mean to you?

(since I don't believe in the Devil, it means nothing to me personally)

I can predict what Iacchus is going to say next.

That post is was the 222nd post in the thread - Multiply that by 3, and you get 666.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You expect too much! Things will happen in their own sweet time. Like it or not!

:s2:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

:s2: Why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

[Dancing David]

Hi Iachuss:
You have asked a question that does not have a definitive answer.

Does the universe show a design?

I ask again, where do you see evidence of design?

My thinking is heavily influenced by the study of natural selection. You say"I see a horse", and I agree "I see a horse", but what if we ask another question about design of say a "Human Being"?

Like which came first, walking or talking? Which has a greater impact upon human evolution? This gets into the question of design, is it deliberate or is it contingent?

[Iacchus]

We have cause-and-effect on the one hand, and the rules that govern cause-and-effect on the other. And yes, in that I see a design. And where exactly do I see this design? In the whole structure of the Universe.

[Z]

Let's start from the top, Iacchus.

What do you mean by 'design'? What do you mean by 'the structure' of the 'whole' universe?

Are you implying you are privy to the structure of the whole universe, or are you in fact referring to the observed structure of the visible universe?

But the most important thing we need to understand is this term, design.

Please, what is your definition of design?

[Iacchus]

It's rather obvious to me that the whole Universe is based upon structure, it's just one binding rule after the next. While hey, maybe all God had to do was roll out the carpet so to speak, perhaps to impress a particular female friend at the time? and voila! We have the Universe! You know, isn't that in effect what evolution entails, rolling out the carpet?

And yes, I am referring to the observed structure of the visible universe.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We have cause-and-effect on the one hand, and the rules that govern cause-and-effect on the other. And yes, in that I see a design. And where exactly do I see this design? In the whole structure of the Universe.

Well, you do get points for talking with me, I appreciate it in all the distraction. The design of the whole universe seems to be the cumulative effect of a bunch of random events, There are very few straight lines, or consistant patterns that would indicate a 'design'.

When you say 'cause and effect' you seem to be buying a reductionary model. So again I ask where do you see purpose and intent?

Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but I see a gulf in our communication, you say there is a design, I say not, even amongst 'barred spiral galaxies' there is so much variation that there is no consistent pattern amongst them , except that they appear to be spiral form with prominent bars, but view them 10 million years on and the form has changed, where is the pattern?

[Iacchus]

I don't mean to cut you short here (am getting tired) but wouldn't it be fair say that evolution is contingent upon the laws of physics? In which case the effect it produces, due to cause-and-effect and the notion of determism, results in a planned unfolding of the Universe? Of course evolution is more about the process of life, and yet it's merely the further extension of the unfolding of the Universe.

Or, consider it this way, you have a series of irrigation canals --representing the laws of physics, and hence the design -- which, when you release the water, everything follows it's pre-designated course which, of course is the process of the Universe unfolding itself.

[Z]

Well, if that's the case, Iacchus, we already know what it's unfolding into - maximum entropy.

What a wonderful plan God has for us! :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't mean to cut you short here (am getting tired) but wouldn't it be fair say that evolution is contingent upon the laws of physics? In which case the effect it produces, due to cause-and-effect and the notion of determism, results in a planned unfolding of the Universe? Of course evolution is more about the process of life, and yet it's merely the further extension of the unfolding of the Universe.

Or, consider it this way, you have a series of irrigation canals --representing the laws of physics, and hence the design -- which, when you release the water, everything follows it's pre-designated course which, of course is the process of the Universe unfolding itself.

Yes, I agree that the consistancy observable in the universe is consistant. However , you are seemingly making the assumption, that consistancy implies design and intent.

I am merely arguing that there is little evidence of design in the universe. meaning that there is little evidence that there is some intent in the universe.

Take something like the alleged pinnacle of intelligence the human being, I find that there is little raeson to beleive that there is a design inherent to life and the universe that leaads to the rise of intelligence and homo sapiens. The contingent nature of evolution, natural selection, merely states that triats which benefit the reproductive success of an organism will more likely be passed onto it's offspring.

So did wlking or talking come first, and which is the most beneficial to homo sapiens. I ask this because all the things that we tout as being 'cool' about humans arise after the walking thing. The neotany of the babies which leads to the potential for large brain developement is a consequence (I beleive) of the upright posture of the proto homo.
So the contingent problem for design is this, while evolution might cause learning and intelligence to be selected for in organisms longed lived enough to benefit from it, it is goinf to be dependant on the contingent developement of other traits. So human beings were no5t designed for intelligence, what idf all the upright ancestors had dies from a viral infection? Would then the universe have to force another group of homonids to walk upright to achieve neotany?

I agree that in long lived species and some short lived ones there is a benefit to learning and intelligence, but that it does not seem to be part of some design.

[Z]

What I find interesting, is we had to trade off traits to get where we are today. In order to have these large brains, we had to trade off rapid development in infancy. Instead of a 25-month gestation period and rapid development, we're helpless for years after a 9-month gestation.

(I think the other option was legs set about 3 feet further apart... :D )

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Yes, I agree that the consistancy observable in the universe is consistant. However , you are seemingly making the assumption, that consistancy implies design and intent.

I am merely arguing that there is little evidence of design in the universe. meaning that there is little evidence that there is some intent in the universe.Consistency and order implies structure, and without structure there would be no intelligence which, is the ultimate outcropping of structure. So, just as structure gives rise to structure (another word for design that is), why shouldn't intelligence give rise to intelligence? And why shouldn't intelligence be the underlying principle behind the design of the Universe?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's rather obvious to me that the whole Universe is based upon structure, it's just one binding rule after the next. While hey, maybe all God had to do was roll out the carpet so to speak, perhaps to impress a particular female friend at the time? and voila! We have the Universe! You know, isn't that in effect what evolution entails, rolling out the carpet?

And yes, I am referring to the observed structure of the visible universe.


Certainly!

Contrary to popular wannabe scientist opinions,
atheism need not be a requirement of evolution. That is the misconception that very much intellectually and emotionally hamstrings most atheists making them incapable of accepting obvious things that those who are unencumbered by such unnecessary preconceptions readily and accurately perceive.

Such individuals fail to notice that evolution and atheism can be and actually are mutually exclusive terms.

So many professional evolutionists do subscribe to the carpet-rolling scenario you espouse. They see it as merely a means used to an end by an intelligent creative higher power.

As you can see,
Amateur evolutionists and wannabe scientists are far less flexible.

[Z]

While I personally agree with a carpet-rolling theory... I still don't see the design and structure that Iacchus sees.

In short, there is no 'intelligent design' behind the Universe. Deity just set up a few parameters, pushed 'GO!', sat back, and let it roll.

Structure does NOT imply intelligence, Iacchus - else, you'd have to attribute intelligence to every structure in the universe, and, further, you'd have to agree that intelligence is dying (since the Universe is headed toward total entropy).

Maybe this is the one thing that bothers me most about 'intelligent' design: the universe's overall design is for it to ultimately dissolve into a state of total entropy. This is one theorem which is usually accepted, although some scientists insist that some force will end up drawing the Universe back together to start over again.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

While I personally agree with a carpet-rolling theory... I still don't see the design and structure that Iacchus sees.

In short, there is no 'intelligent design' behind the Universe. Deity just set up a few parameters, pushed 'GO!', sat back, and let it roll.I don't believe that's too far from the truth.
Structure does NOT imply intelligence, Iacchus - else, you'd have to attribute intelligence to every structure in the universe, and, further, you'd have to agree that intelligence is dying (since the Universe is headed toward total entropy).It's all inter-woven into the design of the carpet though isn't it?


Maybe this is the one thing that bothers me most about 'intelligent' design: the universe's overall design is for it to ultimately dissolve into a state of total entropy. This is one theorem which is usually accepted, although some scientists insist that some force will end up drawing the Universe back together to start over again. The one thing you've left out here though is spirit which, is a different story entirely. This in fact is what I base all my observations, the fact that spririt exists.

[Radrook]

As long as it doesnt refer to machines structure doesn't imply it!

;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Radrook
Contrary to popular wannabe scientist opinions, atheism need not be a requirement of evolution.
I can't think of any scientists or wannabe scientists who maintain that evolution implies atheism. The argument from science (all of science, not simply evolution) is that the findings of science demand Deism. That is very clear from the past five centuries. If there is a god, he takes a hands-off position on the universe.
That is the misconception that very much intellectually and emotionally hamstrings most atheists making them incapable of accepting obvious things that those who are unencumbered by such unnecessary preconceptions readily and accurately perceive.
Pish-posh. You guys keep presenting seriously flawed arguments.
Such individuals fail to notice that evolution and atheism can be and actually are mutually exclusive terms.
Excuse me? Mutually exclusive? Are you daft? Evolution resoundingly refutes the creation myths that have come down from various religions. Evolution has no role for god in the creation of organisms or in speciation, but that is merely forces deism, not atheism.
So many professional evolutionists do subscribe to the carpet-rolling scenario you espouse. They see it as merely a means used to an end by an intelligent creative higher power.

As you can see,
Amateur evolutionists and wannabe scientists are far less flexible.
Really? Please provide five citations from peer-reviewed evolutionary journals. I want clearly to see this "carpet-rolling" nonsense in each paper.

[Dancing David]

Well, to avoid derailing:

1. Apparent structure does not neccesitate design.
2. The developement of intelligence does not imply intent to develop intelligence.

Nowhere do I ever rule out the possibility that there is a creation deliberate or not to the universe.

What I ask is , if there is deliberate design to the universe, what structures that have arisen would show that. From what i can see there is solely contingent history, the developement of intelligence seems more acausal than causal.

Hypothesise that there are other intelligences that have arisen in the past and are currently present perhaps. In which case tyhey have ben randomly destroyed by meteors and the like, or they are currently being driven to extinction.

I agree that there maybe a 'watch maker' universe, but if so the watchmaker has little concerns for what happens after the winding of the watch.

So I see no privilege or exception that would indicate a deigned universe. Otherwise, would we really be so free to kill other intelligences, like dolphins and whales, which might be closer to 'god/designer' than us?