|
Author
|
Topic: What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
DT writes: CS writes: If you saw a puddle in the road, would you think that the pothole was just the right shape to hold the puddle? Could you clarify what you mean? Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 2:58 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Weird design
What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing. But you are assuming that there is a goal. No? Is that assumption not beyond you too?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:32 PM | | NOT JULIUS has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
DT writes: Straggler writes: Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle? I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading. But, here's my try. What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole. Do you really think potholes are formed by kids planning puddles? Or are potholes formed by random wear and tear on roads over long periods of time? This is what I meant by pothole Pothole - Wikipedia The point is to ask whether aspects of nature end up fitting the available environment or whether the environment need be designed to support a particular aspect of nature.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:49 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
Wrong analogies: The analogy of the puddle and the potholes, and the "face of man on mars" do not apply. They simply have no goals. If you assume life and humanity is a "goal" then you are right. If we do not make this assumption then life fitting the "hole" available is perfectly analogous to the puddle. So is your "goal" assumption justified? I would say definitely not and you have provided no argument to suggest otherwise.
Straggler writes: DT writes: What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing. But you are assuming that there is a goal. No? Is that assumption not beyond you too? To which you never replied. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:41 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:18 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
DT writes: Huntard writes: There you go again, ASSUMING there is a goal to the universe, and that that goal is life. As for your bet, I'll take you up on it. Please provide me with clear evidence we are indeed "designed" and i will join your cause. See my post # 51. May not be clear evidence for you but makes sense. DT in post 51 writes: Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise. Here is analysis: A. Facts first: - if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible. - -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die. B. Interpretation of the facts: -Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side. - Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish? An analogous question will answer this one. Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL”the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition”also has a GOAL: Life ! I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)”I forgot his name”” it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect). So how specifically is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life? Why do you deduce a "goal" to be necessary in one case and not the other? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:12 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: The Puddle / Pothole analogy has no Goal
So how exactly is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life? Simply, your analogy does not apply. I think somebody has already confirmed that the analogy of the puddle/pothole has no Goal. Your argument appears to be very very circular. There must be a goal because the environmental conditions are so specific to life and the conditions are so specific for life because life is the goal. How is this different from: The exact size and shape of the puddle must have been the goal bacause the puddle meets the exact size and shape requirements of the goal. You are applying circular logic to the argument you want to make but refusing to apply the same logic to the puddle. Life is the puddle. The conditions are the "hole". The same goal arguments can be made for each. Your argument is nonsense. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:29 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 8:37 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Why are u are giving correct answers to the WRONG question?
Most of you are answering the question HOW? My questions are WHY? Why the laws of physics? why the correct distance? Why the natural processes? why is the condition of earth just right for life? I am sensing that you are avoiding the issue. Trying to confuse me or other readers. My guess is you are afraid to answer the question WHY? "Why" questions require reason/purpose/ or goal that's why. And, I sense that you won't admit this.It's scary for you because it will make P3 valid...and... Let me illustrate the difference between HOW and WHY? Fact: Salmon goes upstream--overcoming great obstacles--on the way. How does the Salmon do it? By means of natural process, bodily clock, perhaps, etc. Why does Salmon do it? It wants to breed. But why? To pursue its GOAL to preserve and continue the salmon's specie. In other words, its goal is LIFE. Why is the hole the exact shape for the puddle created? Because the goal of the hole was the puddle. Do you really not see the problem here?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 3:45 PM | | NOT JULIUS has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: There is a big difference between an earth full of life, a live salmon, and a puddle
Why is the hole the exact shape for the puddle created?
Because the goal of the hole was the puddle. Do you really not see the problem here? Listen to yourself, please. There is a big difference, in case you did not notice. Life and all its manifestation--including the Salmon--is alive. That puddle is non-life.  And humans are not salmon. So while salmon, and even all fish, may well be designed humans obviously are not designed because, like puddles, we cannot breathe underwater. Obviously. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 5:00 PM | | NOT JULIUS has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
If vegetables are so good for us and fat and sugar are so bad why do strawberry cheesecake and chocolate taste so good whilst brussel sprouts and lentils seem so unappealing? Why are drugs addictive but cucumber not? Whoever designed that is a bastard. What purpose did they have for that?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-21-2008 6:42 PM | | NOT JULIUS has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
Message 119 of 185 (486585)
10-22-2008 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Agobot
10-22-2008 5:20 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
If you know the answer to this question, you've unlocked all the mysteries. If there has to be a first "uncaused cause" according to your thinking why would you not conclude that the one thing that you know exists is it? On what basis would you conclude a yet more complex phenomenon that itself is even more unlikely to be uncaused? Especially given that there is no rational or evidenced reason to suppose this even more complex phenomenon actually exists? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 5:20 PM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 6:25 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 121 of 185 (486588)
10-22-2008 6:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
10-22-2008 6:25 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
We know the universe exists. We do not know that a creator exists Does assuming that which we do not even know exists was the first uncaused rather than that which we know does exist was the first uncaused make any sense? On what basis?
Evidence? The little speck of energy that floats into an ocean of energy that it calls an universe wants evidence for the source of the energy? It almost sounds romantic. I wish we could establish a connection with the creators, i bet what you call science can do that one day. The little speck of energy that answers the other speck has irrationally decided that we need to regress the uncaused one extra layer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 6:25 PM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 7:23 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 142 of 185 (486771)
10-24-2008 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Agobot
10-22-2008 7:23 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
Your argument is an argument from incredulity. Nothing more. And your assessment of the probability of this universe existing is nothing more than crazed speculation. Maybe it was inevitable rather than improbable. On what basis can you really claim to know otherwise?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Agobot, posted 10-22-2008 7:23 PM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 1:49 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 151 of 185 (486803)
10-24-2008 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Agobot
10-24-2008 1:49 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
Does the universe obey laws? Do we create laws and logic that reflect the universe in which we find ourselves? Could a universe with other laws have existed? Could we exist in a universe that does not obey laws? Could a universe that does not "obey" laws even exist? Could all universes with all possible "laws" potentially have existed or even exist? Is "nothingness" stable? How long will our universe last? What percentage of this time will life be present? Could life have existed in any number of other possible universes? Is life anything special except to those that happen to possess it? Do any of these questions have any meaning or value except to humans. The answers to all of these questions are so unknown, our ignorance currently so complete that your assessments of probability are ridiculous. You no more know that the universe is an improbable possibility than an inevitable certainty. You assert a probability. Where do you get your figures from? How do you know any of the answers that would be required in order to calcualte such a probability?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 1:49 PM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 154 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 155 of 185 (486813)
10-24-2008 6:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 154 by Agobot
10-24-2008 6:07 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
What meaning do you attribute to "inevitability"? Inevitability resulting from what for example? Inevitability potentially resulting from the same unknowns from which you conclude deep improbability.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM | | Agobot has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 7:10 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 176 of 185 (486969)
10-26-2008 11:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by Agobot
10-24-2008 7:10 PM
|
|
Re: A sampling of their Answers
It's just that this thing has much much greater intelligence than us, it might be aliens, and aliens are natural right? Regardless the obvious question then is what created it/them? It is hard enough working out how the things we know to actually exist got here without vanishing down the rabbit hole of having to consider how things that may or may not exist may or may not have got there as well. If you want to invoke gods, God, aliens or whatever to satisfy your need for answers then you are free to do so. Whatever makes you happy. But let's not pretend that your conjecture regarding various improbabilities has any more basis than the idea that a universe like ours was inevitable. Both are philosophical positions borne of humanity's complete ignorance of any of the relevant facts. I hope science will one day answer these questions. But whacking in whatever answer seems subjectively most satisfying is not a good method of making reliable conclusions. Better to just admit ignorance and continue the search. I am sure humanity will benefit from the journey regardless of the answers that may, or may not, be discovered. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 7:10 PM | | Agobot has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2