What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

quote:

---

Because there would be no universe and no life, the universe is based on order and laws that can be described mathematically. Where did this law that prohibts 2+2 to equal 5 come from?

​

Ask an atheist. They live in a dream land, maybe they'll come up with a fancy answer.

​

"2+2=4" this is the universe that obeys the laws of the creator.

---

Virtual particles appearing and the disappearing from a vaccum constitute "something from nothing." There is nothing, and then something. Is it created? Or does it happen because empty space is not really empty after all? 2+2=5 is nonsense, and yet theist expect others to believe that 1+1+1=1 and not the sum of 3. They call this The Trinity. Show me a universe where 1+1+1=1 and I will show you a unverse where 2+2=5. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Hello.
Agobot writes:

quote:

---

yes, there is no true vacuum but what does it have to do with the all-encompassing all-compelling 2+2=4?

---

Nothing. Just as 2+2=4 has nothing to do with created laws of the universe. It is humanity that assigns significance, and lables how the universe manifest reality. If the Earth were inhabited by cockroaches or bacteria as the most intelligent creatures the concept of 2+2=4 would still apply and yet most likely cockroaches would not be doing addition. The physical laws of the universe are what they are because if it where any other way then that would be the status quo. In other words, reality exist because 'it' does. Not because it must. Existance is the status quo because it is. And if it where not, then there would be nothing to comptemplate the 'why' we are here. Energy has for whatever reason, or no reason has become sentient in the form of human conciousness.
Agobot writes:

quote:

---

Scripture is BS but if that 1+1+1=1 is Jesus becoming one with God, think about the energy of the singularity. It has become 20 billion people so far, of which 6.65bln. are alive. It can become anything and then it's still one. Just give it time and it may one day become god.

---

Well I do not agree that scripture is BS. It is actually does have some good knowlege and messages contained within it. Even if not factual still contains some truth.
As far as Jesus becoming one with God is concerned was a matter hotly debated during the council of Nice. The cardinals finally concluded that Jesus is one with the Father and same substance. This I suspect was to quell the notion of 3 separate entitys which smacked of Paganism to the Church. The Big Bang giving rise to the cosmos and eventually humans is a mystery. Even if someday humanity gleens the answer of how it happened the question of why will always persist. The harden atheist will be content to say there is no why. The agnostic will say there may be a why, and the faithful will say God is the why. It is only when people claim to have the one and only answer does the argument commence in my opinion.

Agobot:

quote:

---

This is ultimately wrong. Our intelligence is a reflection of the inherent intelligence of the universe.

---

Wat? The inherent intelligence of the universe? So the universe is intelligent because we are? And the universe would be intelligent regardless of humanity exist or not because the universe has intelligent laws I suppose? Bahahhhaahawwahha!!

quote:

---

We don't invent intelligence, we discover it.

---

Some never do.The universe is only intelligent because that is a quality you assigned it and nothing more.Agobot:

quote:

---

Like Faraday discovered that moving a magnet over a metal wire induces electrons in the wire, so is every other discovery mankind has ever made. I can't stress it enough, we don't invent, we DISCOVER that certain things are possible, that they had existed from the beginning of the universe(like electricity that mankind hadn't previously been aware of). All we are doing is discovering those possibilities and "features" of matter.

---

I agree about the scientific discovery...but disagree it is anything other than human intelligence that is responsible for the discovery and knowlege gained. A snowflake is a amazing crystaline structure. But it is not intelligent.

quote:

---

All these were possible because of the inherent characteristic of matter, they are what they are whether we are here or not, but they are our OUR TRUE LIMIT of intelligence and development. This is the only thing that might hinder us from becoming gods, the inherent intelligence of the universe. If we reach a level where no new discoveries are possible although we've understood the universe, and we are still not close to being able to transcend our existence into a new timeless immaterial form, then that will be the limit. We aill not become gods

---

All these things are possible because of the intelligence of humanity to manipulate matter to suit his needs. From shard of flint to a fine clovis point. From sand to glass, it is mans intelligence that discovers the principals and properties of matter in order to use them for his purpose.

quote:

---

This is the only thing that might hinder us from becoming gods, the inherent intelligence of the universe.

---

Wat?
Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

1.61803 writes:

quote:

---

Scripture is BS but if that 1+1+1=1 is Jesus becoming one with God, think about the energy of the singularity. It has become 20 billion people so far, of which 6.65bln. are alive. It can become anything and then it's still one. Just give it time and it may one day become god.

---

The above quote attributed to me is not my quote but a statement from Agobot.

Hi Agobot!
Agobot writes:

quote:

---

Yes, the laws of the universe is what formed a guy like you who makes stupid statements. You think you made yourself from nothing?

---

No I did not make myself. I am a product of the same stuff that composes the periodic table of elements.

quote:

---

Think again. You are a product of matter/energy BY THOSE SAME LAWS of the universe that reflect high levels of intelligence.

---

Umm your doing it again, assigning intelligence to the universe.
Agobot writes:

quote:

---

Intelligence you'll never comprehend.

---

I only comprehend the necessity you have to attribute "intelligence" to the universe in order to assert there is a intelligent law maker that created it. This is fine to believe, but does not mean it is so.
Things may just simply be the way they are just because. I like the third grader comparison you made. Children most often cut through alot of the stupidity some adults tend to come up with.Agobot writes:

quote:

---

Typical atheist arrogant bullshit.

---

Agobot writes:

quote:

---

You are simply an extremely sophisticated cloud of positively and negatively charged energy, that asserts it came into being by chance. And i get the feeling that, in your case, you might be right.

---

Hmmm extremely sophisticated, I like that. Coming into existance by chance. Oh come now you know that is not so, I was planned by the creator that eventually the atoms that compose me would be used to let me type these words. BahHhwahhwwwaahhhaa!!!Agobot asserts:

quote:

---

Human intelligence would not be possible if there were no intelligently made physical laws that govern the universe to allow us to understand our realm of existence.

---

And you know this to be true because?...because it just has to be that way. because? Because that is how it is. It must be because of the intelligence of the Universe that uses intelligent laws. Oh ok.
I am convinced now. Thanks for clearing that up.If you want to believe the Universe is intelligent because it uses intelligent laws that were created by a Intelligent being. And...that humanity may someday obtain God status, except that the limiting factor will be the universe itself. More power to you. I for one do not. This does not make me a atheist. It simply makes me a doubter kooky ideas.

Hello Agobot, I do appreciate you not resorting with ad hominims this time. Ok here we go....

quote:

---

But you are fighting successfully the second law of thermodynamics. Doesn't it surprise you? There is much much more to you than a combination of atoms.

---

As far as I know the known atoms that the body of science has thus far identified are what are charted on the periodic table. Those are the atoms the universe is composed of as well. If you have knowlege of more types of atoms please share with me what they are.

quote:

---

You are the consciouness and eyes of the universe, you are the representation and manifestation of the laws of physics that allowed your emergence and that constructed the universe from energy.

---

I am indeed concious, and I do have eyes. And although I do agree that if one where to think of the universe as a collective conciousness then yes your statement of me being the eyes and conciousness of the universe would hold some validity. However, I am simply a collection of atoms and universal forces (there are but 4 we know of). As is everything that exist in the cosmos. And try as I might, I can not accept that just because it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling of certainty that it all might just be arbitrary. At least I have the intellectual fortitude and honesty to consider that dreaded possibilty.

quote:

---

So baisaclly you are saying - everything is as it is, for no reason.

---

I am saying that is a possibilty. And the orderly physical laws contain strange quirkyness that is not orderly in the least but caotic and random in some instances.

quote:

---

Although it's orderly and follows physical laws. Does this make sense to you?

---

those apparent orderly physical laws contain strange quirkyness that is not orderly in the least but caotic and random in some instances. Wave functions and fields propagate in a apparent determnistic fashion. But the uncertainty principal still prevades. And any moment Cave Diver and Son of Goku will be chiming in. But I still contend that stoichiastic randomness is a element of nature. The math can get you there and thats all that counts...pun intended.

quote:

---

It's called the Cause and Effect principle. The cause and effect principle holds everywhere in our classical realm of existence because it's based and follows the laws of physics inherent in the universe. Some elegant examples that rule our world and that act on the Cause and Effect principle:

---

Thomas Aquinas very elegantly argued the Proofs of God and the Prime Mover et al... does not hold water. Cause and effect does not hold water. I challenge you to explain how you can conclude based on just your observations how a cause effects another. You can only assume and conclude there is a relationship. You can not KNOW because you are dependant on your own perceptions and are a part of the system that is doing the observing. Yes common sense and physics etc.. tells us if you push a domino over it will cause the next one to fall. But you can not KNOW it will. Even if you do it a million times you still can not know the millonth and one time if will cause the others to fall. Mathmatically any possible outcomes can occur. All our calculations and knowlege must approximate. Initial conditions can not be duplicated to the exact degree. And the Uncertainty principal will not allow 100 percent accuracy. Reality refuses to be pinned down.So let us just agree to disagree when it comes to complete and certain knowlege that the universe is created from a intelligent creator. We are in good company, many of us do not dismiss this possiblity, we simply withold judgement until further data comes to light. Edited by 1.61803, : change the word (to) to (with)

Hello onifire, I agree with a great deal with your views and opinions. Except this one.

quote:

---

only thing that seperates us from them in complexity is our consciousness, and that only seems important to us. No other species that we know of has it and yet they manage just fine without it. But I don't think the rise in complexity is leading to anything in particular, and I don't think that in a few 1000, or even 10,000 years, our morphology needs to change at all, unless there's a major climate change that will presure evolution. In fact if we become a Stage I society, like your buddy Michio says, then we can control the climate and natural forces that tend to drive an evolutionary change, thus never being presured to evolve.

---

How we define conciousness may differ, but I am of the opinion that my dog is concious. My birds are concious as well, I am almost sure there are other organisms that are concious. Conciousness is not confined to humans in my opinion, but rather a emergent property of the brain. I could of course be wrong. It seems to me once a organism begins to interact with it's environment it exhibits varying levels of conciousness. There is some point I think where instinct and chemistry overidden and the organism makes a choice in how to respond, react to external stimulius. This would be concious behavior I think.

Hello,

quote:

---

However I am aware that you are not a meaningless combination of atoms. You say it's natural, because that suits your belief and you want to wave off the question why we are fighting entropy.

---

All I can say is that there may or may not be a reason. I do not know the answer, nobody does. If you insist you know the answer thats fine, but it does not convince. I for one derive meaning from my life. I do not assign meaning to why or how the universe came to be as it is. Because I do not know the answer to those questions. I do not want to insist that the evidence of incredible complexity of the universe is undeniable proof of design or designer. I ok with that, your not so we disagree. But your certainty does not trump my skepticism.

quote:

---

BTW we need to establish what we consider a natural cause? Does miracle constitute natural cause? Is the singularity natural?

---

Everything that exist in nature is natural as far as I am concerned. Because if it exist in our universe then how can it be otherwise?
Something that exist outside our cosmos is supernatural, and who knows maybe such things exist, but if it does exist outside the cosmos how are we able to decern it? Primitive man once thought many things where supernatural. Fire, Lightening etc.

quote:

---

Is the earth natural, considering that it's nothing but 100% empty space? What exactly is "natural" outside of our silly debate where everyone is twisting science to suit his beliefs?

---

The Earth is natural. It is composed of atoms as well and has mass and gravity and is not empty space. If you believe the Earth is nothing but empty space fine, but your wrong. Look up the Higgs field and Higgs boson to find out why things obtain mass. And yes I am aware the particle and associated field has not been found yet. I am also aware the graviton has not been discovered yet either. But we have mass and occupy spacetime trust me on that one. Or maybe we are in the clutches of Descartes demon.

quote:

---

What does the quantum world have to do with life and consciousness?

---

Short answer, everything. Example if the electrons and atoms of the microtubuals on the flagellum of your fathers spermatazoa suddenly decayed before fertilization, you would not be concious now. You would not be here reading this. Everything affects everything. Quantum events within the sun {nuclear fusion} create He from H and the Photons from the sun are inevitably responsible life evolving on Earth. Unless of course your a creationist then the answer is much simpler.

quote:

---

Everything that exists in nature is a very vague definition. If you read on some forum that there is another earth with dinosaurs would it be natural? Would an invisible object be natural?

---

I thought I had responded adequatley to this. So I will simply say I think that the universe is a natural process. Maybe it is not. But I think it is, and since I do then I think the formation of galaxies and planets and life are natural processes as well. And if another planet supports other life that will be natural as well since it is occuring in our cosmos. Everything that exist is part of the cosmos.
If you can refute that go ahead and try. Time did not even exist until the big bang. If God does indeed exist then it will be the only exception since God is a self existance, undifferentiated, uncreated reality. Supernatural. At least according to the Angelic Doctor. I kind of liked his definitions of God.

quote:

---

Who has seen a higgs boson? God?

---

?

quote:

---

You have no idea how wrong you are on earth being not empty space. Do you know what gives matter the impression of solidness?

---

I thought that the temperature and energy states of atoms was responsible for which state matter takes..gas,solid, liquid, plasma.
And then of course gravity. I thought it was the Higgs field allows for matter to clump allowing for things to be things. Do you have some more recent information?

quote:

---

Judging by your response I think you don't.

---

Hmmmm. See my above response.

quote:

---

When you find that out, you may start to see why the brightest minds like einsten, hawking, schrodinger, m.kaku, etc. atart talking about god.

---

All athiest, if you are arguing from authority at least find some belivers.

quote:

---

What has mass got to do with solidness?? Have you seen E=mc^2? Does energy have mass?

---

Energy is the radiation emitted when mass is converted to energy using the c2 conversion factor in special relativity equations, whether it be relativistic or total energy being describe. So energy as photons have no mass. So what, the only time that formula is cranked for real is in singularitys,the center of stars, and nuclear reactors and weapons. Let me guess, you think because matter on a quantum level is really nothing then our existence is dependant on God. Okee dokee. I have been looking into this shit a long time dude. I am more moved to the possibilty of God when I see a babys smile, or a sunrise. I respect fundalmentalist more than ID'ers. If your gonna have a God, have a big one.

(A) Einstien was a athiest. true or falseMain Entry: ATHEIST !A-thE-ist Yahoo
Pronunciation: \ -th-ist \
Function: noun
Results
one who believes that there is no deityMain Entry: DEITY YahooFunction: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·i·ties,
Etymology: Middle English deitee, from Anglo-French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English Tw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
Date: 14th century
Results
1 a. 1 a the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b. b capitalized god supreme being2. 2 a god or goddess - the deities of ancient Greece3. 3 one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[57] In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms”it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."[58]The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in a God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[54] In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[55] Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."Main Entry: AGNOSTIC ag-!n@s-tik Yahoo
Pronunciation: \ ag-ns-tik, g- \
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnstos known, from gignskein to know - More at - know
Date: 1869
Results
1. 1 a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god2. 2 a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something - political agnosticsSo based on the above definitions and Einsteins statements I would conclude that he was a Athiest and latter in life became more Agnostic. By his own statements and not your opinion that he believed in God.(B) Another Earth exist and is support life in the form of dinosaurs
true or false
This is false. If you have evidence that another Earth exist with dinosaurs please post a link.(C)Matter is composed of 100 percent empty space: true or false
The answer to this is false. Matter is composed of fermions[fermions] =[Matter - Wikipedia](D) Energy has mass is false. *I already addressed this last post.Agobot writes:

quote:

---

What is it dependent upon? Your common sense? How does your everyday logic and common sense explain positive and negative charges turning to consciousness? I have a feeling your answer to this will put the final touches of a very hilarious thread.

---

You think the universe is dependant upon God. I do not know the answer. So what. Positive negative charges turning to conciousness may be a emergent property of energy and have nothing to do with a diety. Who knows the answer? You?