|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Why is it that I am sensing that most who want to topple P3 are giving the right answer to the wrong question--or are you evading something?
Catholic writes: It's an inevitability governed by the laws of physics gRANNY M writes: We know the earth can support life...The bottom line is this, non-directed processes can produce results... Huntard writes: The right distance of the earth to the sun is indeed the result of natural processes...What do you mean why? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Cath writes: Don't you realize that science doesn't answer the why questions? That admission I agree. Did you not notice that my proof is not scientific but by argument--a branch of philosophy? You lose because you lost your cool. I'm calling Admin to warn you. How do I do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Stragler writes: 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. Anyway, thanks for your contributions. I'll post a closing argument--coz I hate it when people loose their cool like Catholic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Thank you everyone for your contribution to this thread. I'd like to say goodbye for now (vacation) and I hate it when someone resorts to cursing rather than reasoning out. ( Admin, please warn Catholic Scientist)
In this thread I tried to prove that we can find evidence of design on earth or in the universe. Designed being defined as "to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose in mind." Message 1Did you notice that I did not try to find proof in science, but in syllogism--a part of philosophy? The proof is found in Message 35 The contentious premise is # 3--"The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth." Many of you tried to falsify that premise by giving the right answer to the wrong question! Did you notice that I tried to prove # 3 by a series of WHY questions--not HOw? Finally, I got an admission from Catholic that Science does not answer WHY questions. So there you are...Message 88 Premise # 3 appears only to be a circular statement, but it is a valid premise when tested with a series of "Why" questions. One tried--and others joined-- to disprove it by making a wrong analogy--the pothole and puddle. There is really a big difference between that analogy--and that of the conditions stated above. Literally, and in complexity. I don't expect you really to accept--as of now--this kind of reasoning. But, someday you will--when you realize that science ends ( the how questions) where philosophy begins ( the why's). At that time, you'll say, "Aha! there are lots of evidence for design".
Huntard writes: That's the same question as asking why an apple tastes like an apple, it's because it's an apple! The natural processes of the universe act that way because that's the way they act. There is no why. It is inevitable that of the gazillion of planets at least one of them got just the right conditions for life to arise. There is no why needed for this. You could claim that god intended the universe to be like this and initiated the big bang, I'm not going to argue that point because there's frankly no evidence for anything at that point and so everything can be claimed about it. But other then that there is no reason for why planet earth has life. I'm not going to argue anymore. This is just my wish: that someday, Huntard, you'll find out that there are answers to the "Why" questions of this universe. I'd like Huntard, please, to give the counter closing argument. Afterwards, may I request Admin to close this thread. Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given. Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given. Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Double post. Sorry.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes: That's the same question as asking why an apple tastes like an apple, it's because it's an apple! The natural processes of the universe act that way because that's the way they act. There is no why. I remember answering almost the same question from a kid, "why does banana taste like banana". I tried explaining it through "how's"--chemical composition, etc. But he kept asking why. Finally, I said a banana taste like a banana because if all fruits--apples, oranges, etc--would taste like banana, we would die or boredom. Finally, he accepted that answer because he would not like his apple or orange to taste like banana. And there is a lesson here--even the variety of taste that we have (as opposed to a monotonous one) is proof that the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom.
Huntard writes: P1 there is life on earthP2 This is due to the right conditions being present on the earth P3 There are things about these conditions that point towards an intended goal (list these things) Conclusion: The life on planet earth was a goal. Thanks for that. But, however you put it there is a goal. And, if there is a goal then it is designed--by definition Message 35 ( P1) Finally, I think the real question is not evidence of design. It is a question of the designer's identity. His problem is he did not put "Made by..." If he did, there would be no need of this debate or even this forum. Would you agree? I would like also to thank everyone who contributed. Frankly, I did not know of the anthtropic principle until someone mentioned it here. Thanks so much for that. I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough. :=) :=) Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
huntard writes: To discuss who the designer might be, you first have to show that he designed anything at all, else there's no point in speculating on who he might be. I agree of course that if there was a designer AND his identity was known, then we wouldn't need to discuss it, but that's not really the case, now is it? I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough. :=) :=) Ok, fine, but don't expect people to just swallow everything you say. Just because you THINK it is right doesn't mean it IS, that would require showing evidence. You are the TEMPTER! ( really a complement, my friend). I broke my promise again. But, for the interest of those who want to know more, please follow this link: http//Page not found - John Templeton Foundation The question raised was : Does the universe have a purpose? The answers from these men of science ranged from No, Unlikely, Perhaps, Yes, Certainly, etc. Fine reading. My friend, I could use the previous argument you posted to bolster my argument. But, I would prefer that the reader go to that link. It is to my mind, NEUTRAL. Think again: if all fruits tasted like banana, it would be boring. Boredom kills. So, the Purposer / Designer of the fruit did it... so that ungrateful men would enjoy and have life, instead. Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hello Huntard and the rest of the gang,
Page not found - John Templeton Foundation Here is a sampling of portions of their answers:
L. Krauss, Professor of Physics writes: Unlikely.Perhaps you hoped for a stronger statement, one way or the other. But as a scientist I don’t believe I can make one. While nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, or cosmology has ever provided direct evidence of purpose in nature, science can never unambiguously prove that there is no such purpose. As Carl Sagan said, in another context: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Of course, nothing would stop science from uncovering positive evidence of divine guidance and purpose if it were attainable. For example, tomorrow night if we look up at the stars and they have been rearranged into a pattern that reads, “I am here,” I think even the most hard-nosed scientific skeptic would suspect something was up.” D.Gelemter, Professor of computer science writes: Yes.Consider this question: Do the Earth and mankind have a purpose? If so, then the universe does too, ipso facto. If not, the universe might still have (some other) purpose; but I don’t have to face that contingency, because I believe we do have one . Namely, to defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe”which is otherwise (so far as we know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe. If there are similar projects elsewhere, more power to them; but our own task remains unchanged. But why rise above and not blend into nature? Equivalently, from a Western viewpoint: why did the Judeo-Christian tradition replace the pagan idea of gods made in man’s image with a revolutionary inversion, man made in God’s? Why should we be goaded not to be ourselves but to be better than ourselves? Why seek goodness? They were talking about the universe having a purpose--and that's a big thing. What would be their answer to the question: Why does not all fruits taste like banana--is there a PURPOSE to that? Hmm..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Huntard writes: Breaking a promise for a good reason is OK in my book, I'll check out your link, I will however not debate it here, since it's kinda against the forum rules. Ok, then. Just this one. I promise I won't reply anymore...unless you TEMPT me again Check this article: IsThere Scientific Evidence for Existence of God? http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html This guy just outdid me! I was just trying to prove there is Purpose of the exact distance, the condition on earth, etc blah... blah. In so many words--mostly technical--he offers proof of Existence of God and why Universe is designed. IMO, he differentiated "designoid", as in that JFK shadow in a mountain in Hawaii ( sounds your pothole, eh) and "designed" ( the Mt Rushmore, thingy). Here is a portion of his treatise if you kinda lazy to go over the 26 pages of discussion.
Dr. W. Bradley writes: " To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required. For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe. For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic "building blocks" for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics. We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann's equation for the second law of thermodynamics. And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life. The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself. A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life. Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature's mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature. Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies declares: All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose include us Yes, Huntard and I included. Common, friend, capitulate... so I can give you my blessing. Pls. don't point out "argument from authority" or something. Courts do that. You and I do that, although may be unconsciously, for where did we get our "knowledge" of things but from authorities like teachers, etc? Right, Agobot ? Common, Huntard, say: P3 is valid! Message 35 Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given. Edited by Doubting Too, : So Huntard will not try to falsify P3 of message # 35. :=) Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4727 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Huntard writes: I think I have avoided telling you the authority thingy. I think however, that you'll find me unconvinced after reading my comments. Your blessings though, are always welcome Ok, since you won't agree, I'll just give you a little blessing...about vegetables. Mix cabbage (red), carrots, ginger, and (some sweetener, and H2O in an "osterizer". You'll find a flavorful and nutritious vegetable juice. It's a DESIGNER juice! Good for your health too! But, if you agree that P3 is valid Message 35 I'll give you a big blessing. I'll share with you the secrets of reducing the ODDS against Losing in a lottery. I just found a quirky combination of numbers that won't "combine". If you eliminate those combinations you increase your chances. Edited by Doubting Too, : To bribe Huntard..
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024