Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Easy proof for Inteligent Design
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 16 of 213 (555727)
04-15-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phage0070
04-15-2010 6:35 AM


No. The cube and sphere of matter are held together by the four basic physical forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces. These forces, not our conceptual image of the object, govern their interaction and continued orientation and structure.
These forces are not random, as proven by extensive observation. They do not change function based on if people are thinking about them or not, and they do not exist contingent on the existence of a mind.
I gave cube and sphere example for people to understand the concept. But if you see I clearly mentioned random mass. I didn't say electrons or protons. That means even atomic structures can't exist as they are not random. As you said it yourself, we have structures. When you talk about structures then automatically the role of mind and necessary truths comes in. To avoid confusion, please focus on necessary truths rather than physics for the moment.
Edited by MrQ, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phage0070, posted 04-15-2010 6:35 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 7:16 AM MrQ has replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 17 of 213 (555728)
04-15-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by MrQ
04-15-2010 6:23 AM


Your argument is flawed as other pointed out and it does not proof god.
Kind of naive to think you came up with the proof of God's existence. It is not like anyone else have tried that before.... oh wait.
Anyways, the fact is there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of the concept of God. It is a matter of faith.
If you really really want to get some kind of scientific knowledge that might support your belief I will probably suggest you to study quantum mechanics. And when I say study I mean study at university.
Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 6:23 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 7:19 AM hotjer has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 213 (555733)
04-15-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by MrQ
04-15-2010 6:43 AM


As I pointed out, necessary truths are necessarily true. They can't be false just because there isn't a mind there to observe that they are true. So on the matter of necessary truths your argument fails.
I think that you are confusing a vague idea of what it means for a statement to exist with what it means for a statement to be true. If we accepted that a statement could not exist without someone to think of it, it could still be true, even if nobody existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 6:43 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 7:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 19 of 213 (555734)
04-15-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by hotjer
04-15-2010 6:52 AM


If you really really want to get some kind of scientific knowledge that might support your belief I will probably suggest you to study quantum mechanics. And when I say study I mean study at university.
What's that got to do with the argument I made?! We are focusing on necessary truths and its relationship with mind. Why quantum mechanics should be involved here?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by hotjer, posted 04-15-2010 6:52 AM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by hotjer, posted 04-15-2010 3:07 PM MrQ has not replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 20 of 213 (555735)
04-15-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
04-15-2010 7:16 AM


As I pointed out, necessary truths are necessarily true. They can't be false just because there isn't a mind there to observe that they are true. So on the matter of necessary truths your argument fails.
I think that you are confusing a vague idea of what it means for a statement to exist with what it means for a statement to be true. If we accepted that a statement could not exist without someone to think of it, it could still be true, even if nobody existed.
Just saying that necessary truth is necessarily truth is not the answer. We have to analyze and see what this statement means. How can it be that something that its necessarily is endorsed and workout by a mind its existence is not dependent on it? Just give me one example that these truths can exist before mind! Their existence are with their recognition. You see these are not material things. They are abstract concept. Abstract concept doesn't have any meaning without the mind and can't exist. If you don't believe it just give me an example. Give a necessary truth that doesn't need mind and can be created from random physical substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 7:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 7:44 AM MrQ has replied
 Message 22 by Drosophilla, posted 04-15-2010 8:19 AM MrQ has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 213 (555737)
04-15-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by MrQ
04-15-2010 7:31 AM


quote:
Just saying that necessary truth is necessarily truth is not the answer.
But it is, if you understand it. Your argument relies on denying that simple and obvious fact, and that is why it is the answer.
quote:
We have to analyze and see what this statement means. How can it be that something that its necessarily is endorsed and workout by a mind its existence is not dependent on it?
A statement - as it relates to the actual world - is a purported description of reality. If it accurately describes reality we say that it is true. But it is the statement that depends on a mind for it's existence not the reality it describes. And that is your mistake - to assume that reality is dependent on the statement.
quote:
Give a necessary truth that doesn't need mind and can be created from random physical substance.
Again you are confusing the existence of a statement with the truth of a statement. Show me a necessary truth that can be false and maybe you'd have a case. But you can't because by definition a necessary truth cannot be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 7:31 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 10:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 22 of 213 (555741)
04-15-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by MrQ
04-15-2010 7:31 AM


Hi MrQ
Just saying that necessary truth is necessarily truth is not the answer.
Classic "cart before horse" scenario. In effect you are saying "If there isn't somebody to witness and formulate models or descriptions of a reality then that reality can't exist? Why on earth not? The reality comes first and our descriptive models (which includes science/mathematics and logic) is formulated by us to explain that which exists in reality. If humans disappeared today there is absolutely no reason to assume that the reality of the universe will cease to be....unless you want to provide the math that says otherwise....
We have to analyze and see what this statement means. How can it be that something that its necessarily is endorsed and workout by a mind its existence is not dependent on it?
Are you sure you are not of a strongly religious bent? This sort of attitude has been a classic through the ages of religious dominion....the need to feel that somehow we humans are at the centre of it all and our existence is the be all and end all of everything....the evidence that is coming in (especially from cosmology) suggests that we are nothing at all special (planetary wise) in a very ordinary star system in a commonplace galaxy in a run-of-the-mill part of the super-cluster we are in.
In the grand scheme of things we are just not that important (to the universe - although obviously to us we are everything....see the contradiction?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 7:31 AM MrQ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 04-15-2010 8:38 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 23 of 213 (555744)
04-15-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Drosophilla
04-15-2010 8:19 AM


ID, not human minds
Drosophilla writes:
If humans disappeared today there is absolutely no reason to assume that the reality of the universe will cease to be...
That's not what MrQ implies. He contends that a mind came before matter, not necessarily the human mind. The topic title, after all, is Easy proof for Intelligent Design.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Drosophilla, posted 04-15-2010 8:19 AM Drosophilla has not replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 24 of 213 (555767)
04-15-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
04-15-2010 7:44 AM


But it is, if you understand it. Your argument relies on denying that simple and obvious fact, and that is why it is the answer.
May be you are mistaking two simple obvious facts. I agree that as soon as mind exists then automatically logical truth exist. But because these two are so close together you are mistaking one and forgetting the other. People say it is a horse and cart example. But may be we are mistaking the horse and the cart with each other! Remember these kind of mistakes have happened in the history a lot. For example the notion of time assume to be a constantly increasing at a constant rate at all times. Later on relativity showed that in fact speed of the light is the true constant and everything else is calculated based on that. Classic scientists and philosophers had an illusion of a time being constant. In fact it very much appears to be like that. Even people have difficulty to understand it after reading relativity. Mind and logical truth are like that. As logical truth is the direct result of mind, you don't see mind any more! Very much like light of sun which causes the moon not be seen. That doesn't mean moon goes away.
A statement - as it relates to the actual world - is a purported description of reality. If it accurately describes reality we say that it is true. But it is the statement that depends on a mind for it's existence not the reality it describes. And that is your mistake - to assume that reality is dependent on the statement.
What if the reality is that statement itself?! Through physics we increasingly become aware that information plays a fundamental role in the structure of universe. Per our experience, information is created by mind. If you don't have it then you will only have random noise.
Again you are confusing the existence of a statement with the truth of a statement. Show me a necessary truth that can be false and maybe you'd have a case. But you can't because by definition a necessary truth cannot be false.
The truth is the statement itself! Like for example 1+1=2 does not require anything in material world to exist to be true. But everything in material world depends on it. So 1+1=2 is a higher reality and truth than the physical world and its existence is a requirement for physics. Please hold this bit now for a moment in your mind. Now lets move on out of physics. Now if statement 1+1=2 is by itself truth then it components also should exists before it. But the statement and its components can't be recognized or exist with no mind. Therefore mind is higher reality than the statement itself and that will the true source of reality. Now if you go from bottom up, you will see everything falls into its place.
For the same reason I can't show a logical truth that is not truth with no mind as if mind doesn't exist then no statement exist then you can't evaluate a non-existent statement to be true or false. Even true and false doesn't exist! So a mind is absolute requirement for these abstract realities to exist.
So I answered your question but you didn't! My question was assume that there is no mind and we have a random soup of energy and mass in existence. How can you create a 'necessary truth' from it?
Edited by MrQ, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 7:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 10:43 AM MrQ has replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 10:50 AM MrQ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 25 of 213 (555770)
04-15-2010 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by MrQ
04-15-2010 10:19 AM


May be you are mistaking two simple obvious facts. I agree that as soon as mind exists then automatically logical truth exist. But because these two are so close together you are mistaking one and forgetting the other.
Was the sky always blue, or did it become blue once humans named the color?
Logic and reason is used by the mind to figure out how reality works. They are tools much like naming colors is a language tool used by humans. Reality doesn't need minds using logic in order for it to work. However, minds need to use reason and logic to figure out how reality works.
You are putting the cart in front of the horse.
Through physics we increasingly become aware that information plays a fundamental role in the structure of universe. Per our experience, information is created by mind.
In physics, information is produced every time two particles interact. Information does not require a mind.
So 1+1=2 is a higher reality and truth than the physical world and its existence is a requirement for physics.
The physical world did just fine before humans invented math. Also, the physical world is not so simple as 1+1=2. For example, when you smash two particles together you get more mass out of the collision than the rest mass of the particles you began with. With vacuum energy we get a net positive energy from zero.
Also, there is no such thing as a higher reality. There is reality and then there is reality.
My question was assume that there is no mind and we have a random soup of energy and mass in existence. How can you create a 'necessary truth' from it?
In your scenario there is no "you".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 10:19 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:01 AM Taq has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 213 (555774)
04-15-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by MrQ
04-15-2010 10:19 AM


quote:
May be you are mistaking two simple obvious facts.
No, I'm not. You are denying an obvious fact.
quote:
I agree that as soon as mind exists then automatically logical truth exist. But because these two are so close together you are mistaking one and forgetting the other
Again you keep making the same mistake. I am not speaking of existence, I am speaking of truth. They are not the same thing. We can speak of a hypothetical universe that has no minds we can speak about what would be true there - and your argument does this very thing. If the statements are true in that universe, then their truth must be independent of the existence of minds in that universe - the very thing that your argument denies. The fact that the statement cannot "exist" in that universe does not make it untrue in that universe.
quote:
What if the reality is that statement itself?!
You mean what if there were no objective reality, just what we say ? I would say that our universe does not appear to be that way.
quote:
Through physics we increasingly become aware that information plays a fundamental role in the structure of universe. Per our experience, information is created by mind. If you don't have it then you will only have random noise.
You must have some strange experiences if it includes minds controlling the collapse of quantum superpositions. I've only seen that in science fiction.
quote:
The truth is the statement itself!
If that were true, how could a statement be false ? I already explained what the truth is when making statements about the real world (and you need to know that necessary truth tell us nothing about the real world).
quote:
Like for example 1+1=2 does not require anything in material world to exist to be true. But everything in material world depends on it.
I disagree with everything there. If 1 + 1 = 2 is simply the consequence of an axiomatic model (and since I believe that minds are based on the material world even that does not fit your bill) it has no necessary connection to reality. If it is considered as a model of some aspect of reality, then reality is still primary and does not depend on the model.
quote:
For the same reason I can't show a logical truth that is not truth with no mind as if mind doesn't exist then no statement exist
All I am asking for is a logical truth that would be false in a universe without minds. You have a mind. You can make statements. That's all that is needed. If you cannot talk coherently about a universe without minds then you cannot even say that statements would not exist in such a universe. If you can then you should be able to tell me which logical truths would be false in such a universe - and in fact you need to be able to for your argument to work. (But of course, if you could then you wouldn't be able to talk coherently about that universe after all. So your position is necessarily false).
quote:
So I answered your question but you didn't! My question was assume that there is no mind and we have a random soup of energy and mass in existence. How can you create a 'necessary truth' from it?
I wouldn't create one. But I could say that "if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass" is true - and that is a necessary truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 10:19 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 27 of 213 (555778)
04-15-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
04-15-2010 10:43 AM


Was the sky always blue, or did it become blue once humans named the color?
Logic and reason is used by the mind to figure out how reality works. They are tools much like naming colors is a language tool used by humans. Reality doesn't need minds using logic in order for it to work. However, minds need to use reason and logic to figure out how reality works.
You are putting the cart in front of the horse.
Did I use word human is any my posts?! By mind I didn't mean human mind. Some sort of mind.
Tell me how reality uses logic?!!! What is reality?!
In physics, information is produced every time two particles interact. Information does not require a mind.
From where did you get this? Also particles are structures which are build up on logical truths. So without mind the only thing you are allowed to have is a soup of energy or mass in a random mess.
The physical world did just fine before humans invented math. Also, the physical world is not so simple as 1+1=2. For example, when you smash two particles together you get more mass out of the collision than the rest mass of the particles you began with. With vacuum energy we get a net positive energy from zero.
As I said I don't care about humans.
Also, there is no such thing as a higher reality. There is reality and then there is reality.
There is! Higher reality is a reality that its existence doesn't depend on lower one.
In your scenario there is no "you".
Ofcourse! That's why I said assume!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 10:43 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 04-15-2010 11:13 AM MrQ has replied
 Message 30 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-15-2010 11:23 AM MrQ has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 28 of 213 (555779)
04-15-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrQ
04-15-2010 11:01 AM


Physical Laws, Not Logical Laws
Hi MrQ,
I'm afraid I have to agree with the others on this thread. You are mixing up your terms and creating a big mess of confusion.
Did I use word human is any my posts?! By mind I didn't mean human mind. Some sort of mind.
Since the only fully sapient, logic employing minds we are aware of are human, I think that the two terms can be safely taken as synonyms for the purposes of this thread. Human, mind, whatever. Let's use the term mind.
Tell me how reality uses logic?!!!
It doesn't. And that is your problem.
Logic only exists within the mind. It may describe inescapable truths, but those truths are not to be confused with physical laws. They are simply not the same thing.
Reality functions in such a way that it can be described using logic. It functions in such a way that it can be described using mathematics. That doesn't mean reality is built upon logic or mathematics. A dog can be described using words, but that doesn't mean that dogs are made of words.
Physical laws are not the same as logical truths, even if logic can be used to describe them. Without a mind to understand the logic, there would still be physical laws (as there were before the emergence of life), it's just that they would not be described by anyone.
This is really a lot simpler than you're trying to make it.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:01 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:28 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 29 of 213 (555780)
04-15-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
04-15-2010 10:50 AM


Again you keep making the same mistake. I am not speaking of existence, I am speaking of truth.
Ok, may be you should define truth. Assume we have a universe with no mind in it. Now, how do you define truth in that universe?
If the statements are true in that universe, then their truth must be independent of the existence of minds in that universe
You don't realize that how you are contradicting yourself! How can a statement exists in a universe without mind to be able to evaluate it? Statement is an illusion. Is an abstract thing. You simply can't have it with no mind.
You mean what if there were no objective reality, just what we say ? I would say that our universe does not appear to be that way.
Are you saying that an abstract concept can't be real?! Are you saying that what I write here is not real but it is just some voltage fluctuations on your screen?!
You must have some strange experiences if it includes minds controlling the collapse of quantum superpositions. I've only seen that in science fiction.
I don't want to get into physics now. But it is far deeper than that.
If that were true, how could a statement be false ? I already explained what the truth is when making statements about the real world (and you need to know that necessary truth tell us nothing about the real world).
When you have a mind in existence then that mind creates an statement then it can evaluate its logical value. Your problem is that you think that reality is only in physical world and nothing else. But the very definition of logical truth is that they are real and they are timeless. Just look it up in the wikipedia if you don't believe me. Logical truth are real and they are more real than physical truth.
I disagree with everything there. If 1 + 1 = 2 is simply the consequence of an axiomatic model (and since I believe that minds are based on the material world even that does not fit your bill) it has no necessary connection to reality.
And reality means?!
All I am asking for is a logical truth that would be false in a universe without minds. You have a mind. You can make statements.
Ah! You see! So you even agree that you need to have a mind to create the logical truth! Therefore, logical truth doesn't exist with no mind. Now you are forcing that mind to be outside that universe. Well I am saying the same thing! I am saying a mind existed before that universe unless you won't and can't have logical truth.
But my logical answer would be if we assume that there is a universe that there is no mind in it. Logical truth doesn't have any meaning or definition in that universe. Logical truth is a mind created phenomena.
But I could say that "if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass" is true
This was a joke really! What is 'true'?!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 10:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-15-2010 11:25 AM MrQ has replied
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2010 11:54 AM MrQ has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 30 of 213 (555781)
04-15-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrQ
04-15-2010 11:01 AM


MrQ writes:
Also particles are structures which are build up on logical truths.
Logical truths is a human contrived term to describe observed associations and behavior of what we see in reality (the universe around us).
Are you saying that atoms and molecules will fall apart because there is no one to observe them or some mastermind to put them together? Can you provide evidence for this assumption?
So without mind the only thing you are allowed to have is a soup of energy or mass in a random mess.
Everything at its base level is a soup of energy and mass anyways. Randomness implies a mind to determine something to be random vice non-random so you are stabbing yourself in the foot with this statement.
The basic gist is this. Does the universe exist even if there are no minds (natural or supernatural) that exist within it and from which to observe and understand it. The answer I believe is yes. The alternative is unsubstantiated solipsism.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:01 AM MrQ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024