Intelligence of Design

[Iacchus]

So what is it about all these artificial limbs, artificial joints, pace-makers, hearing aids, eye correction devices and what not? Is it because man thinks he's capable of improving on the original design? In other words whose design exactly, does he think he's trying to improve upon? Obviously if there was no recognizable design in the first place, what on earth does he think he's trying to change?

Whereas if he does change it, surely he can't just impliment something arbitrarily and say, "Okay, that'll fix it." It has to be recognizable or, at the very least intelligible to the overall design, otherwise it won't work, right? Which is to say nothing happens arbitrarily and, it requires sophistication in order to make things work. Doesn't that suggest to you the possibility of Intelligence behind the Design? So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion? Indeed, how would we recognize it?

Or, perhaps what we should be asking is what is intelligence in the first place, when related to the overall scheme of things? Is it an independent process that exists outside of the Universe? Hmm ... Sounds too much like God now doesn't it? ;) Or, could it be that the Universe follows the intelligence of the overall design, of which our intelligence is merely the outcropping or, manifestation of? Of course that doesn't leave us with much more of an option than to suggest Intelligence created intelligence either now does it? ;)

[Pantastic]

You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise.

I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs.

[MRC_Hans]

Short and sweet. Thanks.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pantastic

You equate design with intelligence, which is a flawed premise.

I once found a splinter of wood left over from DIY which was the perfect shape to fit under the short leg of my desk and stop it wobbling. Does this imply a design? Did an intelligence cause the wood to splinter in that way? No, but yet its design was perfect for my needs. However, do realize that even the notion of this fits in quite keenly with the overall design of the Universe? Or, are you suggesting the design you implemented exists somewhere outside of the Universal realm of design? ;)

In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from? In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what exactly is a design anyway, if it wasn't laid out in an intelligent fashion?
Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes.

Thats what we call blind design.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In which case I ask, what is intelligence and, more importantly, where does it come from?
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.

In other words is the Universe intelligent, of which we are merely a manifestation of?
So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Trial and error. Keep the good changes, dont think about arbitrary changes, and discard the bad changes.

Thats what we call blind design. Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it? :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what makes it so blind when we have the laws of phsyics to set the whole thing in motion and, guide it through the process? Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or cause) in the first place does it? :)
If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer.

And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent.

Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

If the outcome of something looks like the sum of purely natural forces, then your question is metaphysical, and hence I dont think it can be given a meaningful answer.The thing is, why is the Universe so structured, that it inevitably produces one thing, intelligence? Indeed, if the Universe wasn't structured, would intelligence exist? In which case we need to ask, what gives structure to the Universe if, not Intelligence Itself?


And in such a case, the question of "intent" itself is an empty possibility. If I were to say "There is an intangible elf on my shoulder", would you be inclined to believe me? Or disbelieve me? If so, why? Strictly speaking, that intangible elf is an empty possibility, it cannot be detected by any scientific methods (as implied by the word "intangible") and cannot be defined in any rational or meaningful way (as a consequence of its intangibility). You cannot tell the difference between a world where this elf really did exist on my shoulder and one where the elf is nonexistent.All depends on whether you believe in the intangible or not.


Likewise, I would consider undetectable "original intent" an empty possibility. And like the elf, it wouldnt make a difference whether it existed or not. And yet you have no problem working with the notion of cause-and-effect in your everyday life, right? Which, in effect states there's a beginning to everything, right?

[Iacchus]

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.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?


So, God is nothing more than the universe? That sounds like a rather atheistic concept if you ask me... a rose by another name... Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

[brian0918]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second)

If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists.

All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by brian0918

What sort of units is this "essence" measured in? What is the flux of this essence through my fingernail? Is is comparable to solar neutrino flux? (100 billion per second)

If you cannot answer these questions, or even conceive of a way of answering these questions, how then can you come to the conclusion that this "essence" exists.Is it possible to observe that the sky is blue and watch the clouds pass by, without understanding the molecular structure of either the atmosphere or, the clouds? Why shoud it be any different with God then? Do I need the latest atomic accelerator to discover that God exists?


All of your posts seem to be just emotions set to words. And why do you say this? Because it doesn't jive with what you're intellectually predisposed to thinking? Or, maybe I just like to have fun with what I do, so what?

[BillyTK]

Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Is there design in the way my cup falls to the floor when I let go of it? Perhaps it's a side-effect of a design to prevent us floating off the planet and into space? Perhaps the design of the planet is to give us something to stand on? Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much? Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Much in the way energy permeates matter if, I'm not mistaken here, I would say God is the essence which permeates everything.

That's nice. Thinking that doesn't give much though.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?

I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed)

[Batman Jr.]

I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God." What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it.

[scribble]

I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.
I don't think it's convincing as something trying to point toward the existence of "God"; I do, however, believe the subject to be very interesting as a philosophical study on what intellect is and consequently what constitutes what we would call a "mind."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

I doubt gravity was designed with the intent of braking or spilling Billy's cup. That sounds more like a bug in a program. (assuming gravity was designed) Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?Well, scribble me timbers! :D


Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff. I do! I do! ... ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

I understand what you say, that intellect in the sense that a human possesses an intellect is just a bunch of iterations of simple algorithms, much as the "behavior," if you will, of nature can be deconstructed into a number of laws. This kind of thought is a foray into what is called pantheism, or a belief that observes the universe as "God."Yes, and I believe this was Aristotle's line of reasoning as well. That everything has a purpose which, stems from an original purpose. Albeit I would call the Universe the physical outcropping of God. Meaning the physical Universe is not the source of God's intelligence or, spirit if you will.


What is questionable, though, is if an intellect requires a sentience behind it. Yes, the mind is the transcendent quality (entity) of the brain which, interacts with and characterizes, sentience ... similar to God's intelligence or, spirit above.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, scribble me timbers! :D


Haaa, I like that. I wanted to go see that pirate movie, but I couldn't get in because it was rated ARRrrr!



I do! I do! ... ;)

Yeah, but you don't count.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is there a design in the push-pull configuration of a stereo amplifier? Sure there is.

Whereas if gravity had no design (i.e., claim) on your cup would it fall on the floor?
I suspect an equivocation fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#equivocation) here in the use of the word "design"...
Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent.

And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus) confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent?
Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!
Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes!

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do you know it wasn't designed in order to allow for the possibility? You can't escape from the fact that everything is contingent upon the design. Indeed, why does the ultimate outcropping of the design wind up with intelligence and, the inherent ability to recognize the very design itself? At the very least it suggests one thing, that the Universe is intelligent. Isn't that what they say, that man was created in order to give the Universe a means by which to look back at itself. Indeed!

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories?

[uruk]

Whereas just because we may not understand the outcome of something, does not mean there was an original intent (or design) in the first place, does it?

I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?

I hope that works in a court of law.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by uruk


I once read that there is a neuro-transmitter binding site in our brains which seems to be specific for the acceptance of the THC molecule. So does that mean that god intended for us to use marijuana by intentional design?


The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine. The proteins that bind nicotine (amazingly called the "nicotinic receptor") is a pentameric complex. This protein complex is found all over the body, in the muscles as well as in the brain. The mode by which nicotine docks in the complex is currently a matter of research, but is getting better known. There are many characteristic structural features in nicotine that have been identified and are believed to be important. THC sort of has the same features, if you look at a broad enough view, but I don't know if it fits into the nicotinic receptors.

One thing that does fit into the nicotonic receptor is epibataine, which is the toxin from the poison dart frog epipidebates tricolor. And here's where it gets complicated. Note that I mentioned that these complexes are found all over the body. Nominally, that is true, and there isn't a lot of noticable differences between the protein pentamers found throughout the body. However, the difference is enough so that what happens is that nicotine only docks in the neuro-versions, whereas epibataine only docks in the muscles. That is why nicotine gives a brain response, but epibataine causes muscles to freeze up. Notice that nicotine doesn't cause muscular response.

The problem is that the difference between the two receptors appears to be basically a subtle structural variation, something like a lengthening of an important hydrogen bond somewhere, that leads to very different selectivity.

This is all very cutting edge stuff, but shows how complicated receptors are. What the nicotinic receptors are designed to bind? I don't know. But apparently lots of things fit in there very well. Of course, that is what makes them drugs in the first place.

[uruk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold The biochemistry of the recognition of drugs in the neurotransmitter binding sites is extremely complicated, and becoming moreso. I don't know a lot about THC, but I do know a little about nicotine...(snip of a very interesting post)...

Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by daenku32

So what are we supposed to learn from this 'intelligence'? How should it affect our lives or scientific theories? Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do salmon swim upstream? Why do we have an origin at all? What's the point? If we don't know from whence we came, then how can we ascertain where we're going? Obviously life appears to have meaning which, is what we build our lives around. But where does that meaning come from? Nothing? Except if there is nothing, there is no order, and without order there is no meaning. So, why are we here? Is it possible meaning has always been, even if in the guise of nothing? If so, then nothing has never been.
Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations.

[BillyTK]

Double post, possibly due to demon-haunted database.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble
I asked this last time, and as far as I can tell, the question stands:

Does anyone over the age of 15 buy into this bullplop?

Let's hear from anyone who thinks this is really good stuff.

Many people on this forum act like they are Jerry Springer Univercity graduates.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by uruk


Which shows (if you follow the ID stuff) that either god meant for us to get stoned or his design of our neruo-transmitter receptor sites is faulty and slip-shot, or narcotic molecules are the work of satan, or ........

I don't know, a lot of people claim that they saw God while on coke...

"Here's a question we ask all of our contestants here on 'Let's Make a Dope Deal,' what made you drop out?"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Why does life have to have meaning? If it does appear to have meaning, why would we need to look beyond ourselves for that meaning?

Astrology must be true because we didn't put the stars into those constellations. If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I suspect an equivocation fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#equivocation) here in the use of the word "design"...It almost seems that way doesn't it? Except that if gravity didn't have its design, nothing would follow suit and gravity wouldn't have its effect.


And the use of the word in this particular circulus in demonstrand (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus) confirms my suspicion. Design requires intelligence, we can recognise the design in the universe therefore the universe is intelligent? We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.


Man looked at himself* and cast the universe in his image; but the universe is. Because we're here to see all this, doesn't mean that all this was created for us to see. Damn uppity hairless apes! Yes, but what if we weren't here to see it? What story would there be to tell?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

If the virgin mary didn't show up on a window stain, we wouldn't say she did, would we? Yes, there's an external reality as well as an internal reality, both of which entail meaning. As for the internal reality which, may not be readily understood (from the outside looking in), that isn't to say it's not without meaning.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.

So, god gotta daddy. Why do you keep runing from this conclusion? Why won't you address it. It is very simple. If the appearance of design means there must be a designer, then we must apply the same reasoning to the designer and conclude he had a designer, and so on and so forth. Your logic, then, demands god gotta daddy.

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee>

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Sorry to rain inconvenient facts on your mental masturbation parade (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43065), but other animals have feelings too. Hey, what's the point in masturbating without coming to the climax? Of course you might not be too happy with egg all over your face. Or, have I confused genders here? Hmm ... :p

Of course for those of us who are less experienced, it may require much longer to achieve the desired result. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

<marquee> god gotta daddy. god gotta daddy. god's daddy gotta daddy. god gotta daddy.</marquee> And by the way, what if God the Father and Jesus Christ were One? It sounds like God would be capable of doing anything now wouldn't it? God the Father is the cause, of which Jesus Christ is the ultimate effect. Which, is as it should be.

"Joy to the world, the Lord has come." Which, is why the Virgin Mary conceived you see.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And by the way, what if God the Father and Jesus Christ were One? It sounds like God would be capable of doing anything now wouldn't it? God the Father is the cause, of which Jesus Christ is the ultimate effect. Which, is as it should be.

"Joy to the world, the Lord has come." Which, is why the Virgin Mary conceived you see.
Stop with the red herrings already. Is that really the best you can come up with? Omnipotence is not an issue here. Neither is the trinity. The issue here is your claim that the appearance of design implies the existence of a designerr. You conclude god. You have now to apply that same reasoning and must conclude god gotta daddy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Stop with the red herrings already. Is that really the best you can come up with? Omnipotence is not an issue here. Neither is the trinity. The issue here is your claim that the appearance of design implies the existence of a designerr. You conclude god. You have now to apply that same reasoning and must conclude god gotta daddy. Oh, indeed omnipotence is an issue. Why? Because as it suggests, it's that which transends everything, including infinite regression. Besides, if there was a cause and effect to everything, then at some point there must have been an original cause. However, since it's not conceivably possible for something to come from nothing, then it suggests the original cause has always been, and is not subject to any other rules. Why? Because it is the rules. While we also have a whole Universe to show for it. So, if you have a problem here, then you're going to have to explain to me how something can come from nothing. And I won't accept the notion that there was nothing before the Big Bang either. At the very least we had Eternity (Ever Presence) which, is not contingent upon time and space.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus

And I won't accept the notion that there was nothing before the Big Bang either. At the very least we had Eternity (Ever Presence) which, is not contingent upon time and space. In other words Eternity exists in another dimension of which we are connected to via consciousness which, in fact is the dimension of consciousness itself. Ever consider that all we have is the here and now, and in that sense the past nor the future exists? In other words all we have is the Present Moment.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If life didn't have meaning we wouldn't ask why would we?
Yes we do.

Originally posted by Iacchus
It almost seems that way doesn't it? Except that if gravity didn't have its design, nothing would follow suit and gravity wouldn't have its effect.
If we shot you into space, you'd gradually be covered in objects of a smaller mass than you which are attracted to you because your mass exerts a greater force of gravity. Perhaps this attraction mean that gravity is beauty?

We can recognize the design in the Universe of which the by-product is intelligence. In which case we may wish to ask who created the design, because its effect -- which, is merely its furthest outreaches or, extension -- clearly illustrates the whole process of order from start to finish ... almost as if it was done deliberately in other words.
I can ask why you are full of such irrational crap. Because I can ask this, it must therefore follow that you are full of irrational crap.

Yes, but what if we weren't here to see it? What story would there be to tell?
A story told by other than human tongues. Or no story at all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I can ask why you are full of such irrational crap. Because I can ask this, it must therefore follow that you are full of irrational crap.Why ask why? ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why ask why? ;)
To demonstrate the fallaciousness of your argument.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, indeed omnipotence is an issue. Why? Because as it suggests, it's that which transends everything, including infinite regression. [/i]
This is a disingenuous intellectual dodge. You use the "evidence" of the universe's design to construct logic to argue for the existence of god. You refuse to use the logic on god, but then, your pre-ordained conclusion in hand, shut down all logical inquiry, and then invoke the unproven "omnipotence"

What you do here is make abundantly clear that your quest was never for truth, but to apologize for your belief. Sad.

[b]Besides, if there was a cause and effect to everything, then at some point there must have been an original cause.
The same dingenuousness is here as well. You stopped your logic the moment you got to your required conclusion. "Good, I got god. Q.E.D. We're done here."
However, since it's not conceivably possible for something to come from nothing, then it suggests the original cause has always been, and is not subject to any other rules. Why? Because it is the rules. While we also have a whole Universe to show for it. So, if you have a problem here, then you're going to have to explain to me how something can come from nothing. And I won't accept the notion that there was nothing before the Big Bang either. At the very least we had Eternity (Ever Presence) which, is not contingent upon time and space.
What evidence do you have that something can't come from nothing? And what came before god? How did god come from nothing? This is just question begging.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, indeed omnipotence is an issue. Why? Because as it suggests, it's that which transends everything, including infinite regression. [/i]
This is a disingenuous intellectual dodge. You use the "evidence" of the universe's design to construct logic to argue for the existence of god. You refuse to use the logic on god, but then, your pre-ordained conclusion in hand, shut down all logical inquiry, and then invoke the unproven "omnipotence"

What you do here is make abundantly clear that your quest was never for truth, but to apologize for your belief. Sad.

[b]Besides, if there was a cause and effect to everything, then at some point there must have been an original cause.
The same dingenuousness is here as well. You stopped your logic the moment you got to your required conclusion. "Good, I got god. Q.E.D. We're done here."
However, since it's not conceivably possible for something to come from nothing, then it suggests the original cause has always been, and is not subject to any other rules. Why? Because it is the rules. While we also have a whole Universe to show for it. So, if you have a problem here, then you're going to have to explain to me how something can come from nothing. And I won't accept the notion that there was nothing before the Big Bang either. At the very least we had Eternity (Ever Presence) which, is not contingent upon time and space.
What evidence do you have that something can't come from nothing? And what came before god? How did god come from nothing? This is just question begging.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

What evidence do you have that something can't come from nothing? And what came before god? How did god come from nothing? This is just question begging. And what is your evidence? The fact that we're here? Ha ha ha!

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what is your evidence? The fact that we're here? Ha ha ha! Quantum fluctuations might not last long, but they do produce particles w/ charges that can be measured.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DarkMagician

Quantum fluctuations might not last long, but they do produce particles w/ charges that can be measured. Yes, but what caused the quantum fluctuations to occur? Nothing?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Yes, but what caused the quantum fluctuations to occur? Nothing?
I suggest you forget about cause arguments, because it's cause arguments all the way down.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I suggest you forget about cause arguments, because it's cause arguments all the way down.

~~ Paul However, is Science really in a position to say whether something did or did not exist before the Big Bang? If not, then this is the only point I'm trying to make, for now anyway. ;) If not, then perhaps Mr. Hoyt should not be so insistent about putting the screws on me, because this is the only thing that's going to hold up his argument if, in fact something can come from nothing. Which I believe is impossible.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, is Science really in a position to say whether something did or did not exist before the Big Bang?

Are you in a better position to say than science? Doubtful.

My understanding is that current thought is there was nothing before. "Before" may not even have any meaning -- oh that's right, you see meaning everywhere. A sign of a desperate and superstitous man. I'm certain people are investigating; we're building more powerful telescopes all the time, and very near the limit of how far back we should ever be able to see already.

My understanding is also that if there was anything before the big bang, all information would have been destroyed in the transition anyhow. That is, effectively, if there was something, we can never, ever know about it, and so it's as good as if there wasn't.

Your understanding is what, now? Absent as usual?

[Iacchus]

Am I in the position to say God exists? Perhaps. At least this is the standpoint I'm arguing from anyway. ;) Can Science prove me wrong? No. Not anymore than it can prove there was nothing before the Big Bang. So, am I in a better position to say than science? You don't know.

Nice try on trying to convince everybody you know what you're talking about by the way.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Can Science prove me wrong? No. Not anymore than it can prove there was nothing before the Big Bang. So, am I in a better position to say than science? You don't know.

Never seen a better example of argument from ignorance -- literally and metaphorically.


Nice try on trying to convince everybody you know what you're talking about by the way.


I hope no one was fooled. I'm no astrophysicist, and I fully expect someone who knows better than I do to step in and correct me if I was wrong.

[Iacchus]

Well if logic fails, then we result to personal attacks, right? It's kind of desperate don't you think? But then again maybe some of us like to live close to the edge.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well if logic fails,

If logic fails, I'll let you know.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, is Science really in a position to say whether something did or did not exist before the Big Bang? If not, then this is the only point I'm trying to make, for now anyway. ;) If not, then perhaps Mr. Hoyt should not be so insistent about putting the screws on me, because this is the only thing that's going to hold up his argument if, in fact something can come from nothing. Which I believe is impossible.
Bullocks on two counts. First, you proffered the argument that the things we see in the universe look designed and that, therefore, there must have been a designer. I have responded to you that, by this same argument, the designer must have a designer. You have been unable to address this except by dodging and deflection. You have the problem, not I.

Second, you are now shifting the argument to the old "something can't come from nothing argument." Let us set aside for the moment what the cosmologists might speculate as to the universe before the big bang and look squarely at the just-so-story of the universe springing from God. We have the same infinite regress here. From whence did God spring? Did not God also come from nothing?

Both your arguments suffer from this same begging the question fallacy. They simply defer the problem, and refuse to deal with the same logic applied to your god answer.

Your arguments are severely flawed. They compel the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by scribble


Are you in a better position to say than science? Doubtful.

My understanding is that current thought is there was nothing before. "Before" may not even have any meaning -- oh that's right, you see meaning everywhere. [...]
I think this is the heart of the problem for strong anthropomorphic deists because they carnt imagine anything without themselves there to witness it; all the rest follows to compensate for that.

Billy "pinnacle of creation" TK

[Radrook]

Only if life has meaning can we ask for its meaning.
Life has meaning.
We can ask for its meaning..

You unravel that convoluted reasoning.
I can't.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Radrook
Only if life has meaning can we ask for its meaning.
Life has meaning.
We can ask for its meaning..

You unravel that convoluted reasoning.
I can't.
I am going to assume you are serious here. Your first premise is based on the false assumption that we cannot ask meaningless questions. You assume we are incapable of creating a concept without a reality. False.

Let's substitute X here:

"Only if X exists can we ask about X."

That is the general form of your assertion, refuted by this substitution:

"Only if left-handed framleich wrenches exist can we ask about
left-handed framleich wrenches."

Now, go find us left-handed framleich wrenches.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Bullocks on two counts. First, you proffered the argument that the things we see in the universe look designed and that, therefore, there must have been a designer. I have responded to you that, by this same argument, the designer must have a designer. You have been unable to address this except by dodging and deflection. You have the problem, not I.So how does the zygote become a fully developed human being if it doesn't follow the plan which was laid out for it in its genes? Are you trying to tell me that has nothing to do with the design? The information is all encoded man.


Second, you are now shifting the argument to the old "something can't come from nothing argument." Let us set aside for the moment what the cosmologists might speculate as to the universe before the big bang and look squarely at the just-so-story of the universe springing from God. We have the same infinite regress here. From whence did God spring? Did not God also come from nothing?Except you fail to realize that God is not natural but a spirit. In which case God is not of this physical Universe you wish to describe.


Both your arguments suffer from this same begging the question fallacy. They simply defer the problem, and refuse to deal with the same logic applied to your god answer.

Your arguments are severely flawed. They compel the conclusion that god gotta daddy. Do you believe that Universe exists as a whole? If, in fact there's only one Universe, why does there have to be more than one God? One Universe. One God. Makes sense to me.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So how does the zygote become a fully developed human being if it doesn't follow the plan which was laid out for it in its genes? Are you trying to tell me that has nothing to do with the design? The information is all encoded man.
Evasion, again. Address the question about the infinite regress your logic demands.
Except you fail to realize that God is not natural but a spirit. In which case God is not of this physical Universe you wish to describe.
The fallacy of special pleading. You asserted that something cannot come from nothing. I responded that you need to apply that logic to god, who sprang from nothing. Now you claim god is nothing material. But now you have a non-material thing giving rise to a material something. This refutes your original assertion that this was an impossibility.
Do you believe that Universe exists as a whole? If, in fact there's only one Universe, why does there have to be more than one God? One Universe. One God. Makes sense to me.
This is another deflection from the argument. You asserted the "design" in the universe implies there must be a designer. You conclude god. Now, apply that logic again, and god gotta daddy. Or do you wish to argue that your god is amorphous blob that has no appearance whatsoever of design? Careful here, you're backing yourself into more problems.

[Iacchus]

The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you. ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you. ;)
Further evasion noted.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The problem here is that you've become couched in all your empirical observations which, is too bad for you. ;)

Oh, Empirical Observation has only lifted up humanity from it's recesses and further advanced it - Meh, Empirical Observation, who needs it when you can sit down and uselessly think that the world around you is the product of your imagination! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Oh, Empirical Observation has only lifted up humanity from it's recesses and further advanced it - Meh, Empirical Observation, who needs it when you can sit down and uselessly think that the world around you is the product of your imagination! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So, and whether it has done this or hasn't, maybe we should be giving God credit instead? ;)

[Z]

Why credit God for the advancements of Man? HE didn't do the hard work of determining the reality of things - HE left us with a bunch of false mythic mumbo-jumbo, and WE figured the rest out all by ourselves.

Sorry - I'll credit God with pushing the START button, but after that, it's props to Science.

[Iacchus]

Regardless, I would suggest that it was all part of the plan. And, for any of us to assume otherwise is awfully arrogant I would think. ;)

[Z]

No more or less so than assuming that God has a plan, or that you can detect the presence of God's plan.

Arrogance works in mysterious ways... :D

[The Cats Venm]

I think it would, however, be fair to give God credit for Iacchus's insanity.

He can't help it if God made him that way, and we shouldn't be so mean to him. He knows not what he says.


But science, that's all ours (humanity). If it weren't for science, humans would have no reedeeming qualities whatsoever. I wouldn't want to live in a world without science (and critical thinking, scepticism, and all the other things the scientific method has encouraged).

Then again, I suppose I wouldn't know what I was missing, ignorance being bliss and all that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

I think it would, however, be fair to give God credit for Iacchus's insanity.It's all about self-justification isnt' it? And yet what is there to justify, without meaning to justify it with? In which case I ask, how can you justify what you're saying about me? By the way, I started this thread called, Why Call Me Stupid? in case you're interested. ;) It should still be available on the board, otherwise I'll have to post the link you see. Of course that means you'll have to click on an additional page, but what the heck, maybe you should be required to work for it? ;)

[Navigator]

Is nothing a scientific certainty which has been proven?

Is the concept of a beginning a certainty or an assumption?

Why is the Christian concept of 'God' used as the basis for argument against any God existing?

All of your religions teach the worship of a deity and a doctrine of human salvation. It is the underlying kinship of your planet's religions. However, I am not the deity that your worship falls upon, nor am I the creator of your doctrines of human salvation. Worship of me in coin or moral consideration is unnecessary.
First Source - My Central Revelation

You are the heirs of my light, which gave you form. It is my voice that awakened you to individuality, but it will be your will that awakens you to our unity.
First Source - My Central Message


Why is the thought of 'God" existing, so repulsive to some individuals?

My vastness makes me invisible and unavoidable. There is nowhere you can be without me. My absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes me unique. I am First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain.
First Source - My Central Message


It is understandable that human god concepts in the light of the evolution of human intelligence and awareness become repulsive.
It is folly to assume from this that God does not exist.

All that is proven is that God is not how humans first thought/assumed God is.
Always presume innocence until evidence proves guilt.

God is bigger than any human individual can imagine.

I live for your discovery of me. It is the highest expression of my love for you, and while you search for my shadows in the stories of your world, I, the indelible, invisible light, grow increasingly visible. Imagine the furthest point in space -- beneath a black portal, cast in some distant galaxy, and then multiply this distance by the highest numeric value you know. Congratulations, you have measured an atom of my body.
First Source - My Central Message

While the 'Damn uppity hairless apes!' focus upon arguing 'the sub-facts' The Facts get on with being...undected by those distracted by the little nauances.

am not to be feared or held in indifference. My presence is immediate, tangible, and real. You are now in my presence. Hear my words. You are in my presence. You are within me more than I am within you. You are the veneer of my mind and heart, and yet you think yourself the product of an ape. You are so much more than you realize.
First Source - My Central Message

While the argument of 'what god is and isn't' is always aimed at something outside the concept and understanding of The Self, God remains undetectable.
And arguable.

Truly, this is my central revelation. I am here, beneath this mythology, to awaken your animal self to our relationship so you may slay your vanity. This is the distortion between us. It is not space or time that separates us and diminishes our conscious relationship. It is your desire to excel within the cave of your existence and derive gratification from this and this alone.
First Source - My Central Revelation

I will leave to others to define the psychological wisdom and common sense behaviors of success. My words penetrate elsewhere; to a place within you that is susceptible, innocent, faithful, and ever listening for a tonal hint of my presence. When it is found, this part of you -- like an instrument entrained by a powerful resonance -- will vibrate in accordance to my voice.
First Source - My Central Revelation

Is nothing a scientific certainty which has been proven?

Is the concept of a beginning a certainty or an assumption?

[Iacchus]

Eternity has always been.

[daenku32]

Since everything is a design, then there is no difference between non-design and design, making design a worthless word of no unique qualities.

[Iacchus]

Some designs are more base than others, but designs nonetheless.