Intelligent Design

[cytwombly]

Care to debate this idea? Seems some communities are pushing this idea to get around explicit statements of Biblical creation in relation to evolution.
My own thoughts are that this argument is quite old and am surprised to see it surface again: fallacious.

[::Major_Baker::]

Care to debate this idea? Seems some communities are pushing this idea to get around explicit statements of Biblical creation in relation to evolution.
My own thoughts are that this argument is quite old and am surprised to see it surface again: fallacious.

This isn't a scientific theory, and should not be included in public classroom curricula. Fine for a class on religion, but not science.

[Craig]

My question for those people who advocated intelligent design: the fossil record indicates that the vast majority of species, up to 99.9%, have gone extinct in the past. Does that mean that these species were the product of unintelligent design?

[cpwill]

no, they were simply part of creation.

Intellegent Design is just as much a part of science as other theories floating around out there: they are all searches for answers utilizing the evidence available (ID does not use the bible; despite what it's opponents might wish to have you believe). if you want to see a brief overview of the evidence for it, i've already posted some of it; but i'll copy it over: well, let's take a look at the odds; first off, to see what we're looking at.

firstly; there are a large number of combined factors necessary for life to arise on this planet at all. Jupiter's gravity field pulls in space debris; constantly protecting us from what would otherwise be cataclysmic event after cataclysmic event. we have 21% oxygen in our atmosphere; if it were 25% spontaneous outbursts of fire would be constantly occuring, if it were 15% life would suffocate; if the moons' gravitational interaction with earth were any greater, tidal and tectonic effects would create instabilities that would destroy life, if it were any less; we'd have climactic instablity (you know that storm on mars?) that would produce the same effect. if the original gravitational forces were altered so much as 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun wouldn't exist and neither would we; etc.

astrophysicist Hugh Ross once did a study calculating the probability of these types of factors co-occuring; eventually noting 122 in all. assuming that there are 10 to the 22nd power planets in the universe (one followed by 22 zeros); the odds are one chance in 10 to the 138th power (one followed by 138 zeros) of any one of those planets having all of the necessary factors occuring. to place this in even more perspective, there are 10 to the 70th atoms in the entire universe.
as Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, codiscoverer of the radiation afterglow of the Big Bang put it: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absense of an absurdly-improbably accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."

now; speaking as to evolution itself; the theory has gaps; i'm not interested in dealing with them right now; which is why i didn't bring them up and why i'm not arguing them.

however, as discussing the creation of the first life:

firstly, we are not dealing with infinite time; such doesn't exist, which is good, because it is impossible. in a finite universe, infinite can only exist in the theoretical. so we have some definite deadlines to meet. secondly; we have the incredible complexity of the end result. and no, i'm not talking about human beings (although the complexity of the average human mind is amazing), i'm talking about the first life, the first amoeba/cell/whatever you want to call it that was created in the primordial sludge. firstly; it's incredibly complex: according to Richard Dawkins, proffessor of zoology at Oxford University (and a confirmed darwinist), the genetic message found in the most simplist of amoeba's has roughly the same amoung of information as 1,000 complete 30 volume sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

but let's break it down further: protien molecules are ultimately the building blocks even of that amoeba, after all. michael behe, microbiology, has calculated that the probablity of getting so much as one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) correct by chance would be similar to the chances of a blindfolded man finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. that would seem to be improbable enough; until we also add on that to get life you have to get about 200 of these protein molecules together, and in the right order.

and so the liklihood of all this happening mathematically, even in the (as i recall) 4.3 billions years old earth has been around is not exacly zero; but is so close as to make no difference, even more so when we recognize (as you so correctly did) the millions and millions of different life forms; along with how long they've been around; it shortens our deadline considerably.

furthermore, natural creation of life itself is against the laws of science, in particular the second law of thermodynamics; that nature tends to bring to disorder, rather than order. once the system is living, mind you, it can become more ordered, but only by losing energy in the process of growth. you're a nurse; you know better than i do that we don't process what goes into our bodies at 100% effeciency. however, the original creation of that order is more and more improbable the more time you give nature the time to do what it does; which is disorder and disorganize.

a quick example; let us say that i put a copy of van gogh's 'starry night' onto a large cloth; and cut that cloth into tiny strips. let us say, however, that i kept those strips in their proper order, next to each other so that the picture is still more than easily distinguishable. let us say that i then drop this picture out of an airplane. what is the chance that the strips will fall such as to reform the picture on my lawn? very low. oh, but i didn't allow enough time. alright; we'll take the airplane up to 10,000 feet and drop them, giving the natural laws more time to work on them; what is the result? the strips are even more scattered than they were before. and this is with me starting with all the pieces in the correct order; already assembled. how much does it hurt the liklihood if i don't even start with the right pieces, and i drop them in different locations as i fly along? nonliving chemicals being susceptible to the Second Law of thermodynamics, the liklihood of life arising from them without design is, well, not exactly impossible, but so close to it as to make no difference.

[cpwill]

if you'd like to get into some of the gaps in complete evolutionary theory; i'd be happy to.

[USViking]

The author of Intelligent Design would have
had to author these:

Smallpox microbes

Cholera microbes

Rabies microbes

Typhoid microbes

Typhus microbes

Plague microbes

Malaria microbes

Yellow Fever microbes

and literally millions of others.

Let's take a look at the odds:
what are they that the designer gives a damn
about human suffering?

[cpwill]

:shrug: i suppose it is in how one defines suffering.

[up2date]

Intelligent design is creationism with a new dress. Nothing more, nothing less. I have absolutely no problem with it principle and think it's great if parents want to teach their children creationism, or if they learn it in private school, at a church, from god parents, etc. It has no place in public schools as a science. It would be appropriate as part of an historical or sociological study of creation stories over time and around the globe or something similar.

[cpwill]

wrong; ID is a science; it is based on science, and it uses as evidence scientific fact; acknowledged by the experts (nobel winners included) and repeatable in experimentation. it doesn't argue for a christian jewish or hindu God; simply, as it says, an intellegence. look in my post above and tell me how many bible quotations are in it. this isn't someone trying to argue 6-day creation (no matter how many of it's oppenents want you to believe that; or their publicly-created stereotype); this is nothing but good science.

it always amuses me when folks accuse ID'ists of being inherently biased. 1.As if people haven't become ID supporters from being non-ID supporters based on the evidence and 2. As if materialists aren't athiestically biased :rolleyes:

[Craig]

no, they were simply part of creation.


That may be, but the whole rest of this business of "fine tuning" the universe is more than a little bogus given that the vast majority of all life on earth, which God supposedly created "intelligently", did not survive! Funny that God would bother to take efforts to ensure all the variables necessary for life occurred, and then when it came time for His living creations, most of them were designed such that they went extinct. I'm not sure what God's reason for setting up His creatures for failure is, but it certainly does not compel me to believe in intelligent design.

[cpwill]

who says they were designed to survive indefinitely?

[Craig]

wrong; ID is a science; it is based on science, and it uses as evidence scientific fact; acknowledged by the experts (nobel winners included) and repeatable in experimentation. it doesn't argue for a christian jewish or hindu God; simply, as it says, an intellegence. look in my post above and tell me how many bible quotations are in it. this isn't someone trying to argue 6-day creation (no matter how many of it's oppenents want you to believe that; or their publicly-created stereotype); this is nothing but good science.

it always amuses me when folks accuse ID'ists of being inherently biased. 1.As if people haven't become ID supporters from being non-ID supporters based on the evidence and 2. As if materialists aren't athiestically biased :rolleyes:

But the whole problem with this intelligent design is that is predicated on a principle that is not scientific, namely an ethereal, intelligent divine creator. It could be completely true that the world and universe were intelligently designed, but to try and claim that this assertion is scientific is simply fallacious. There is no empirical way to test for God; by definition, He is immaterial and beyond any human-devised method to test for Him. This problem also applies to any other ultimate divine reality which claims to be beyond human empiricism, as most if not all do claim. So no, it cannot be scientific, for the very reason that it relies on an assumption that is inherently non-scientific.

[Craig]

who says they were designed to survive indefinitely?

And what purpose, might I inquire, is there to design a species that will rapidly go extinct? Morever, what purpose is there to allowing others to survive? Is not this standard for which species survives and which one will not, under God's intelligence and architecture, largely arbitrary?

[Duo_Maxwell]

God is perfect in all ways yes?
Then God's will is perfect in all ways yes?
What is perfect is devoid of all flaws and problems yes?
Therefore shouldn't what comes from a perfect will be perfect?
Yet we have instances of very imperfect creatures. So what's the deal?

Intelligent design would make sense with a screw up God who was imperfect.

[USViking]

:shrug: i suppose it is in how one defines suffering.

One form of suffering is the physical pain
felt by those sickened by the microbes
described in post #6.

Another is the emotional pain felt by the
family and friends of those who died from
the infections.

[cpwill]

But the whole problem with this intelligent design is that is predicated on a principle that is not scientific, namely an ethereal, intelligent divine creator.

how is that not scientific? science is a search for causes; for answers. in order to be both honest and accurate; science can't rule out answers or causes in advance out of philosophical desires.

It could be completely true that the world and universe were intelligently designed, but to try and claim that this assertion is scientific is simply fallacious.

think about that statement. science trying to discover the source of existance. science finds this source; but, somehow, it's not scientific?

There is no empirical way to test for God; by definition, He is immaterial and beyond any human-devised method to test for Him.

:shrug: do you believe in black holes?
scientific and reasoned review of the evidence certainly leads to this conclusion.

This problem also applies to any other ultimate divine reality which claims to be beyond human empiricism, as most if not all do claim.

ah; what you are doing here is confusing materialism with science.

So no, it cannot be scientific, for the very reason that it relies on an assumption that is inherently non-scientific.

it rely's merely on the assumption that one should not rule out in advance super-natural phenomena, and that to do so is to allow your personal philosophy to determine your result. everything else is built upon the scientific evidence available.

[cpwill]

And what purpose, might I inquire, is there to design a species that will rapidly go extinct?

what purpose is there in designing a species that will go extinct only after an eon has passed? Now you're moving from Design's existance and getting into the Design's motivation; which is where science has little material, and we'd be forced to depend largely simply on reason.

Morever, what purpose is there to allowing others to survive?

:shrug: again; i'm not aware that ID argues a case for any particular motivation on the part of the Intellegence; merely that it exists. however, as a Christian; i'd say that the God i know is a creator in abundance.

Is not this standard for which species survives and which one will not, under God's intelligence and architecture, largely arbitrary?

You'd have to ask him:)

[cpwill]

God is perfect in all ways yes?
Then God's will is perfect in all ways yes?
What is perfect is devoid of all flaws and problems yes?
Therefore shouldn't what comes from a perfect will be perfect?
Yet we have instances of very imperfect creatures. So what's the deal?

:) now you're crossing the road from ID into theology: ID doesn't try to argue perfection, or even morality; merely that life seems to have an intellegent design behind it.

Intelligent design would make sense with a screw up God who was imperfect.

:shrug: you're free to draw that conclusion from it.

[mataj]

wrong; ID is a science; it is based on science, and it uses as evidence scientific fact; acknowledged by the experts (nobel winners included) and repeatable in experimentation.Yea? What experimentation?

[cpwill]

that which produced the results that they utilize in the first place.

[Redratio1]

Let's take a look at the odds:
what are they that the designer gives a damn
about human suffering?

If the designer is interested in evolution, those are great tools for natural selection. That makes a lot more sense than trying to introduce an intermediate answer of morality. The idea that humans are sole focus of some divine plan is hubris. Just as Copernicus and Galileo cast off the old notion of Earth-centered universe.

[cpwill]

who said we're the sole focus? certainly not ID. they simply use us as a test case. and the D in ID stands for Design, not Divine. (again:rolleyes: ), this is not an argument for a God as we've come to know Him through the Christian medium; it doesn't claim some kind of omnipotent omniscent being; it simply points out that the design of nature is such that it is virtually impossibly to have occured without intellegence behind it.

[Platypus]

wrong; ID is a science; it is based on science, and it uses as evidence scientific fact; acknowledged by the experts (nobel winners included) and repeatable in experimentation.
What kind of experiments would those be? Get the deity/designer to create a new species for you? :rolleyes:

You're attempting two kinds of misrepresentation in one sentence. The first is an appeal to (false) authority; some experts might subscribe to ID, but "the experts" in general don't. The second is the use of scientific language without actual science behind it to make beliefs based only on faith seem more respectable. Neither tactic is worthy of any more response than to note that they diminish rather than enhance the credibility of any other claims you make.

[cytwombly]

who said we're the sole focus? certainly not ID. they simply use us as a test case. and the D in ID stands for Design, not Divine. (again:rolleyes: ), this is not an argument for a God as we've come to know Him through the Christian medium; it doesn't claim some kind of omnipotent omniscent being; it simply points out that the design of nature is such that it is virtually impossibly to have occured without intellegence behind it.

Do you personally worship God and the Intelligent Designer? That's two gods, how many more are there? The God of War?.....

[cytwombly]

wrong; ID is a science; it is based on science, and it uses as evidence scientific fact; acknowledged by the experts (nobel winners included) and repeatable in experimentation. it doesn't argue for a christian jewish or hindu God; simply, as it says, an intellegence. look in my post above and tell me how many bible quotations are in it. this isn't someone trying to argue 6-day creation (no matter how many of it's oppenents want you to believe that; or their publicly-created stereotype); this is nothing but good science.

it always amuses me when folks accuse ID'ists of being inherently biased. 1.As if people haven't become ID supporters from being non-ID supporters based on the evidence and 2. As if materialists aren't athiestically biased :rolleyes:

Intelligent Design is a concept older than the modern scientific method. It merely argued that since the world seems to be ordered is some way it must have been done by an Intelligent Designer. This was argued by Plato. Then I believe by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. There really is no scientific evidence for it because science stopped postulating the final cause (teleology) 500 years ago.

[USViking]

If the designer is interested in evolution, those are great tools for natural selection. That makes a lot more sense than trying to introduce an intermediate answer of morality (emphasis added).
It would be better if there were no God
than if there were one for whom morality
was in any sense "intermediate".




The idea that humans are sole focus of some divine plan is hubris. Just as Copernicus and Galileo cast off the old notion of Earth-centered universe.
It may be there is an impersonal,
non-anthropormorphic God who
takes no notice of us.

Einstein believed in such a God.

I do not see how such a God could
pocess ANY moral attribute.

And in such a case, belief and disbelief
would have no different effect.

[Duo_Maxwell]

:) now you're crossing the road from ID into theology: ID doesn't try to argue perfection, or even morality; merely that life seems to have an intellegent design behind it.

On the contrary, i'm simply applying the known understanding of God, the basic theme that it is perfect in all ways. If God is perfect in all ways, then therefore his creations should be. Yet they clearly fail to live up to the notion of godly perfection.


:shrug: you're free to draw that conclusion from it.

Perhaps. Orthodox gods never made a single ounce of sense to me.

[cpwill]

What kind of experiments would those be? Get the deity/designer to create a new species for you?

no, however, if you want to apply both sides to the same measure you then willing to hold off the teaching of darwinistic evolution until a lizard is observed turning into a mammal or a bird?

You're attempting two kinds of misrepresentation in one sentence. The first is an appeal to (false) authority; some experts might subscribe to ID, but "the experts" in general don't.

these "scientists in general" are holding to a materialistic faith; they don't object to ID on scientific grounds, but rather on philosophical ones. i've quoted several of them over the last week or so.

The second is the use of scientific language without actual science behind it to make beliefs based only on faith seem more respectable.

:lol: you're free to attempt to prove any of the science i've stated wrong; however, as i'm quoting those dang experts (nobel laureates and the like), i'd suggest that you are a bit out of your depth.;)

Neither tactic is worthy of any more response than to note that they diminish rather than enhance the credibility of any other claims you make.

lol, arrogance comes before what? :p

[cpwill]

Do you personally worship God and the Intelligent Designer? That's two gods, how many more are there? The God of War?.....

i believe they are one and the same; but then, that's just me, and not representative of all IDists.

[cpwill]

Intelligent Design is a concept older than the modern scientific method. It merely argued that since the world seems to be ordered is some way it must have been done by an Intelligent Designer. This was argued by Plato. Then I believe by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. There really is no scientific evidence for it because science stopped postulating the final cause (teleology) 500 years ago.

there's plenty of evidence for it; if you'd be willing to read my book. and if you want to add to your list of ID'ists; i'd suggest you start with Newton and Einstein.

[cytwombly]

there's plenty of evidence for it; if you'd be willing to read my book. and if you want to add to your list of ID'ists; i'd suggest you start with Newton and Einstein.

I have never seen any evidence. so what, there is some order in the universe. Proves either a god orders the universe(whatever that god is) or the God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer. Has nothing to do with science.
By the way, Newton never said science proves the Intelligent Design, he just stated it as his belief. Likewise Einstein; they were too intelligent to drag science into religious belief.

[cytwombly]

there's plenty of evidence for it; if you'd be willing to read my book. and if you want to add to your list of ID'ists; i'd suggest you start with Newton and Einstein.

There is nothing in science to prove it: it is and has always been a theological arguement: neither Newton nor Einstein believed in an intelligent universe because science proved it.
By the way, Descartes said that God guarantees the theorems of geometry: should we put stickers on geometry books too?

[cytwombly]

i believe they are one and the same; but then, that's just me, and not representative of all IDists.

So God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer. Nothing to do with science.

[Platypus]

no, however, if you want to apply both sides to the same measure you then willing to hold off the teaching of darwinistic evolution until a lizard is observed turning into a mammal or a bird?
That's not the claim under discussion, though, is it? I was addressing your claim that intelligent design is subject to experiment, and whether or not evolution is has no bearing. It's just a tu quoque ("you too") argument and, as I've come to expect, a fallacy.

In fact, evolution is subject to experiment at a microbiological level. Observing differences between genetically different strains of bacteria is commonplace, as is inducing such differences. The development of antibiotic resistance is the result of many unintentional but nonetheless scientifically valid experiments demonstrating evolution in action. "Weaponizing" anthrax or plague is the same process undertaken deliberately. Such experiments are routine for evolution, and still nonexistent for intelligent design.
these "scientists in general" are holding to a materialistic faith; they don't object to ID on scientific grounds, but rather on philosophical ones.
Red herring. Why they believe (or not) is irrelevant. The fact is that "the experts" do not support ID as you attempted to claim.
:lol: you're free to attempt to prove any of the science i've stated wrong; however, as i'm quoting those dang experts (nobel laureates and the like), i'd suggest that you are a bit out of your depth.;)
And now we get to good old ad hominem. I'm no more out of my depth than you are, so if I should shut up so should you. Alternatively, you could try addressing the facts instead of the people presenting them.
lol, arrogance comes before what? :p
Before a fall, as you are demonstrating. How's the view from down there?

[mataj]

that which produced the results that they utilize in the first place.You are ducking the question here.

Experiments have names.

[Craig]

what purpose is there in designing a species that will go extinct only after an eon has passed? Now you're moving from Design's existance and getting into the Design's motivation; which is where science has little material, and we'd be forced to depend largely simply on reason.



:shrug: again; i'm not aware that ID argues a case for any particular motivation on the part of the Intellegence; merely that it exists. however, as a Christian; i'd say that the God i know is a creator in abundance.



You'd have to ask him:)

And here's another question worth asking: what Biblical scripture even loosely implies that species were meant to go extinct?

[cpwill]

That's not the claim under discussion, though, is it?

call me curious: were evolution under discussion; would you insist that someone observe a lizard turning into a bird or a mammal?

I was addressing your claim that intelligent design is subject to experiment, and whether or not evolution is has no bearing. It's just a tu quoque ("you too") argument and, as I've come to expect, a fallacy.

call it a fair standard fallacy; me, expecting you to apply a fair standard, obviously a fallacy of logic :).

In fact, evolution is subject to experiment at a microbiological level.

interesting you would bring that up, actually, as some of the most damning anti-macro evolutionary evidence is found at the microbiological level. :)

Observing differences between genetically different strains of bacteria is commonplace, as is inducing such differences. The development of antibiotic resistance is the result of many unintentional but nonetheless scientifically valid experiments demonstrating evolution in action.

evolution within a species, yes; no one's ever claimed that there isn't lattitude within the possibilities.

"Weaponizing" anthrax or plague is the same process undertaken deliberately. Such experiments are routine for evolution, and still nonexistent for intelligent design.

:lol: actually, ID utilizes those experiments just as materialists do; it's a key part of their evolutionary argument.

Red herring. Why they believe (or not) is irrelevant. The fact is that "the experts" do not support ID as you attempted to claim.

:lol: actually, it's highly relevant, as cytwombly has grasped, with his attempts to call the motivations of ID supporters into question. think about it; here you have a large number of highly intellegent scientists; many of them on the cutting edge. being materialists, they have personal philosophical reasons for wanting to disprove ID. however, they are forced to resort to philosophical arguments to do so: they have been unable to come up with a single reasonable likely counterargument utilizing scientific evidence: they are FORCED to resort to philosophical arguments, and these are SCIENTISTS. if that's not an argument for ID, i don't know what is.:p They dont deny the science, or the results, or the evidence; they simply refuse to consider the conclusions that spring from that evidence. the belief that life sprang to being on this earth spontaneously from living matter is nothing less than simply a matter of faith; based completely on ideology. the way they attempt to defend this, for example, as Darwinist Richard Lewontin (Harvard) stated in his defense: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding hte real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of it's failure to fufill many of it's extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow the divine a foot in the door.:lol: i mean, talk about writing your conclusions into your definitions and conditions; this is logically silly. "we realize that all the information available looks like a Creator did it, but we're going to refuse to consider that possibility because we don't want to"? how is that science? it's bad science.

And now we get to good old ad hominem. I'm no more out of my depth than you are, so if I should shut up so should you.

:lol: a personal attack? no, not hardly;) were this to be a personal attack, i would tell you what my opinion of you is: as it is, i was merely stating that when you choose to deny the scientific evidence put forth by the entire scientific community, and when you choose to take direct confrontation with nobel laurates; that unless you are secretly a genius microbiologist yourself who has nothing better to do than post on forums, you might have gotten into a debate that's a bit over your head; as you are taking issue with not me but them.

Alternatively, you could try addressing the facts instead of the people presenting them.

i'd love to see you address the facts i've presented here :)

Before a fall, as you are demonstrating. How's the view from down there?

i rest my case :)

[cpwill]

I have never seen any evidence. so what, there is some order in the universe. Proves either a god orders the universe(whatever that god is) or the God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer. Has nothing to do with science.
By the way, Newton never said science proves the Intelligent Design, he just stated it as his belief. Likewise Einstein; they were too intelligent to drag science into religious belief.

well, newton was highly religious; he wrote more religious treatise than he did scientific or mathmatical ones. however, he certainly did believe that science proves ID. einstein came grudgingly, and said he was eventually forced to accept ID despite his original "repugnance" due to the evidence.

So God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer. Nothing to do with science.

no, i said that in my opinion it was; however, that that specifically was not representative of all IDists; and that it had nothing to do with the science of Intellegent Design.

There is nothing in science to prove it: it is and has always been a theological arguement: neither Newton nor Einstein believed in an intelligent universe because science proved it.

to prove it, no. to show it to be likely beyond all reasonable doubt? yes; and that is why newton and einstein believed.

By the way, Descartes said that God guarantees the theorems of geometry: should we put stickers on geometry books too?

:shrug: i can't see why you would; is there currently a major debate in the geometric world?

[cytwombly]

well, newton was highly religious; he wrote more religious treatise than he did scientific or mathmatical ones. however, he certainly did believe that science proves ID. einstein came grudgingly, and said he was eventually forced to accept ID despite his original "repugnance" due to the evidence.

You again assert that Newton proved ID with science: you have presented no argument or evidence. I assume you have none. And what if Newton wrote more letters to his family than published works on mathematics, what is that supposed to prove?

no, i said that in my opinion it was; however, that that specifically was not representative of all IDists; and that it had nothing to do with the science of Intellegent Design.

Sorry, ID is just a theological inference from the observation that order exists in the world. No scientist would think theoretical advance is made with this assertion.



to prove it, no. to show it to be likely beyond all reasonable doubt? yes; and that is why newton and einstein believed.





:shrug: i can't see why you would; is there currently a major debate in the geometric world?

As with your case of Newton and Einstein, some mathematicians make religious assertions that scientists have abandonded as being useless. Astronomy has gotten along fine without assuming that God is literally moving the heavens. Good thing, would hate to see our knowledge go back to having the Church threaten to kill our scientists.

[sorry, haven't figured this out yet; still trying to figure out how to do the quoting]

[Churlant]

An inquiry for IDists...

The currently accepted theory for formation of solar systems involves a rather large cloud of cosmic dust which, through gravitational forces, condenses into independent bodies of both rocky and gaseous states.

Thus out of an untold mass of dust and the forces of gravity are formed cohesive, compact, and complex objects out of which equally complex materials are produced in purely geologic processes.

Is it a component of ID to assume that gravity itself has been so specifically designed as to allow these creations? That without an intelligent design, gravity's powers would somehow be statistically impossible?

-JC

[Madrigalian]

One form of suffering is the physical pain
felt by those sickened by the microbes
described in post #6.

Another is the emotional pain felt by the
family and friends of those who died from
the infections.


All of which is necessary in order to "experience". Without suffering there is no Joy. Without sorrow; no Happiness. No despair; no wisdom. No Tragedies; no Triumphs. No injustice; no Righteousness. The "designer" (to stick with the subject matter) does not visit these things "upon" us. We "choose" these experiences going in, or at least understand the nature of the class when we sign up. It is how we grow. How we learn. Sometimes, it is how we help others grow and learn. Such as a child born deaf, dumb and blind who lives but a few tragic years. Consider him/her a teacher. Yours if you care to hear the message he came here to deliver.

Just food for thought.

[cpwill]

An inquiry for IDists...

The currently accepted theory for formation of solar systems involves a rather large cloud of cosmic dust which, through gravitational forces, condenses into independent bodies of both rocky and gaseous states.

Thus out of an untold mass of dust and the forces of gravity are formed cohesive, compact, and complex objects out of which equally complex materials are produced in purely geologic processes.

Is it a component of ID to assume that gravity itself has been so specifically designed as to allow these creations? That without an intelligent design, gravity's powers would somehow be statistically impossible?

-JC

i am aware that it is one point in the ID argument about how specific gravity is; and how specific it would have to be to allow for the development of the current state of existance as we know it.

[Churlant]

i am aware that it is one point in the ID argument about how specific gravity is; and how specific it would have to be to allow for the development of the current state of existance as we know it.

Just so I'm clear... ID says that the nature of gravity itself and the manners in which it works - both expectantly and seemingly erratic as we know it to be - are inherently unnatural, the operation of which is by design?

And aside from convenience, what are the logical arguments supporting that particular position?

-JC

[cpwill]

You again assert that Newton proved ID with science: you have presented no argument or evidence. I assume you have none. And what if Newton wrote more letters to his family than published works on mathematics, what is that supposed to prove?

no, as i have stated before; science does not prove ID anymore than it proves our own existance (it doesn't; it merely states that it is extremely probable). newton didn't prove ID using science, he [i]argued[/] for ID using science as his basis. there's a story; for example; of once when he had a model of the planets made; complete with ability to orbit and rotate, etc. etc. a visiting friend and colleague (who was an athiest) told him it was brilliantly done and asked him who had made it for him. newton replied that nobody had made it; upon which the friend replied that such was impossible. newton replied something along the lines of "you see this mere model; and instantly you know that it is too exact, and too complicated to have occured without a maker; but you expect me to believe the same about the original; which is infinitely more complex?" newton argued ID from a scientific stance; as did Einstein.

Sorry, ID is just a theological inference from the observation that order exists in the world. No scientist would think theoretical advance is made with this assertion.

:rolleyes: how many times do i have to repeat this: ID describes no God; it holds to no religion, it is scientifically (not theologically) based, there are plenty of extraordinarily intellegent scientists who believe it, and even those who don't do not dispute the evidence.

[cpwill]

Just so I'm clear... ID says that the nature of gravity itself and the manners in which it works - both expectantly and seemingly erratic as we know it to be - are inherently unnatural, the operation of which is by design?

they say that gravity operating as it does to produce the result that it has is statistically unlikely.

And aside from convenience, what are the logical arguments supporting that particular position?

here's one for you; if gravity had been one millionth of a part faster at the Big Bang; the universe would have spread so fast that galaxies never would have formed; had it been the same amount slower; it would have contracted back on itself; with the same result.

[Churlant]

how many times do i have to repeat this: ID describes no God; it holds to no religion, it is scientifically (not theologically) based


No, ID just implies a God. You are splitting hairs - no, in fact you are pulling the hair and tossing it away in favor of another. To accept ID is to accept a God - WHICH God isn't really the point. The existence of God cannot be proven, it is based upon the faith of those who support His existence. By that very definition there is much more theology based within the theories of ID than science.

they say that gravity operating as it does to produce the result that it has is statistically unlikely.


How so? It is statistically unlikely that a mutual force of attraction will bring materials together and cause others to revolve around each other?

A lot of this "science" seems to be playing with numbers we really don't have a clue about. Do you happen to know the statistical probability of gravity working as it does, along with WHY it is an improbability?


here's one for you; if gravity had been one millionth of a part faster at the Big Bang; the universe would have spread so fast that galaxies never would have formed; had it been the same amount slower; it would have contracted back on itself; with the same result.

Oh? Gravity is very poorly understood. According to some basic principles of physics, the Universe should be slowing down in its expansion. However we have measured evidence which suggests its expansion is actually speeding up.

The fault for this inconsistency lies within "dark matter", the nature of which is less understood still. Imagine it... one day we ascribe God with the design of keeping the Universe together, and the next we find the dark matter which does it instead.

None of this is really the point, however. I am asking you to explain to me how ID explains the organizing effects of gravity as being impossible without help. Seems to be gravity, as weak a force as it is compared to others, is quite good at that all by itself.

-JC

[cpwill]

No, ID just implies a God. You are splitting hairs - no, in fact you are pulling the hair and tossing it away in favor of another. To accept ID is to accept a God - WHICH God isn't really the point. The existence of God cannot be proven, it is based upon the faith of those who support His existence.

proven? no. shown to be statistically so likely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt? yes.

By that very definition there is much more theology based within the theories of ID than science.

;) ultimately they're one and the same, however, ID comes to this debate from a scientific standpoint; not a religious one.

How so? It is statistically unlikely that a mutual force of attraction will bring materials together and cause others to revolve around each other?

had the original gravitational forces of our solar system been 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent off; the sun never would have even formed, and, neither would earth. i'd call that pretty precise and a mark that's pretty statistically unlikely to hit by chance.

A lot of this "science" seems to be playing with numbers we really don't have a clue about.

you and me? no, we don't; that's why we have astrophysicists.

Do you happen to know the statistical probability of gravity working as it does, along with WHY it is an improbability?

see above.

Oh? Gravity is very poorly understood. According to some basic principles of physics, the Universe should be slowing down in its expansion. However we have measured evidence which suggests its expansion is actually speeding up.

personally i'd be of the opinion that the universe is slowly dissapating, but, hey, that's just me.

The fault for this inconsistency lies within "dark matter", the nature of which is less understood still. Imagine it... one day we ascribe God with the design of keeping the Universe together, and the next we find the dark matter which does it instead.

Dark matter has the ability to fine tune the universe at will?

None of this is really the point, however. I am asking you to explain to me how ID explains the organizing effects of gravity as being impossible without help. Seems to be gravity, as weak a force as it is compared to others, is quite good at that all by itself.

i make no pretense to being a physicist; history is my forte; however, from what i understand they explain it by pointing out the statistical unlikelyhood of the current situation. or,as agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow put it: For the scientist who has lived his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries

[mataj]

had the original gravitational forces of our solar system been 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent off; . . .That's one part per 10e32 accuracy. The most precise measurement we are able to make to day is time measurement, which is 2 parts in 10e15 accurate (http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/appendix2/realize_time/unit_of_time.html).


The most problematic is weight measurement. International mass standard is only 1 part per 10e8 accurate (http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/appendix2/mass.html). No mass, nor gravitational force can be determined more accurately than this. Masses of solar system planets are determined far less accurately.

Moreover, even with exact data can behaviour of solar system be reliably calculated only a couple of 10000 years in advance. Mathematical reasons.

Therefore, that 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent accurate claim can not be based neither on measurements, nor calculations.

What is it based on then? Faith? :rolleyes:

[Churlant]

proven? no. shown to be statistically so likely as to be beyond a reasonable doubt? yes.


Faith - nothing more. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is just another phrase for "We don't know how it happened, but it seems almost impossible". Reasonable doubt only works for trial - not science. :sorry:


;) ultimately they're one and the same, however, ID comes to this debate from a scientific standpoint; not a religious one.


No they aren't, and no it doesn't. You have failed to show how science is somehow based on theology. Science does not base its findings exclusively on faith.


had the original gravitational forces of our solar system been 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent off; the sun never would have even formed, and, neither would earth. i'd call that pretty precise and a mark that's pretty statistically unlikely to hit by chance.


Are you pulling these numbers out of thin air, or what? I'd appreciate a source of some type - one which includes information on items like dark matter, etc, and the methods at which these imaginery numbers are found.

Hell, I have some material around my house than has just 1 (count it, 1!) proton short of being platinum!! I mean, think about it - if it just had ONE more, I'd be rich. Imagine the probability of just being 1 short with all those other protons out there... I can't imagine it, it's too great. The chances of that kind of thing... gee...


you and me? no, we don't; that's why we have astrophysicists.


Yup. They know all. They see all. They are never mistaken - and it also depends on which one you ask. Non-IDists are always wrong. :lol:


see above.


See above.


personally i'd be of the opinion that the universe is slowly dissapating, but, hey, that's just me.


Faith again. Wrong answer.


Dark matter has the ability to fine tune the universe at will?


More faith and assumptions. Dark matter's influence on the universe is not understood - but it DOES make up MOST of the universe. What you call "fine tuning" is simply the nature of that matter - much like gravity's nature is to pull things together. There is nothing improbable about it.


i make no pretense to being a physicist; history is my forte; however, from what i understand they explain it by pointing out the statistical unlikelyhood of the current situation. or,as agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow put it: For the scientist who has lived his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries

There will always be theologians in his way - that can't change. Of course, if this scientist actually thinks he has scaled every last mountain of ignorance, he himself has some naivety to deal with.

Perhaps that last mountain with its highest peak will have no traps of theology waiting on the summit - and that is the sign we have made our final climb, for it is then we no longer have mysteries requiring guesswork and faith to solve for us.

-JC

[Strel]

Does ID make falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested in a laboratory?

NO.

So it is not science, period.

[Platypus]

Does ID make falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested in a laboratory?

NO.
Well, to be fair, neither does evolution at any scale above microbes. The "within species" vs. "between species" distinction is meaningless because species boundaries are arbitrary anyway, but the scale argument is at least superficially valid. It becomes a lot weaker when you realize that size matters less than complexity, and that even microbes can undergo very complex changes in a short time. One therefore must posit a much higher threshold for "irreducible complexity" and justify setting it at that level, which none of the ID proponents here have tried to do. Sometimes it seems like the complexity/probability thresholds are just being adjusted in every round of debate to include or exclude whichever evidence they wish. When even that kind of slipperiness fails, they fall back on "the designer must be more subtle than we thought" just like any true conspiracy theorists.

[cpwill]

Does ID make falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested in a laboratory?

NO.

So it is not science, period.

:shrug: neither does materialism; both are issues of interpretation; all that can really be measured is their various statistical liklihoods.

[cpwill]

What is it based on then?

the work of Jeffrey A. Zweerink; who is a research physicist at UCLA.

[cpwill]

Faith - nothing more. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is just another phrase for "We don't know how it happened, but it seems almost impossible". Reasonable doubt only works for trial - not science. :sorry:

:sighs: very well; prove, scientifically; the existance of gravity.

you can't; all you can do is show it's stastical liklihood is well past the 99.999% range. unless you yourself have complete knowledge of the entire universe, you can't prove anything.

No they aren't, and no it doesn't. You have failed to show how science is somehow based on theology. Science does not base its findings exclusively on faith.

no, but it bases some of it's theories exclusively on faith; as with materialism as i believe i illustrated a couple of posts up. furthermore, IDists do not argue from a theological standpoint; but rather a scientific one. else you have a great deal of difficulty explaining about all these agnostic/athiest scientists who become ID'ists. Einstein is the example i've given you several times, and which you've ignored.

Are you pulling these numbers out of thin air, or what?

no, i'm getting them from scientists.

Yup. They know all. They see all. They are never mistaken - and it also depends on which one you ask. Non-IDists are always wrong. :lol:

:rolleyes: i have never argued this; astrophysicists don't know all; but they know significantly more about their subject than us; they are the experts, therefore, when discussing astrophysics; it might be wise to reference them.

Faith again. Wrong answer.

actually that was merely an opinion, which is why i started it with personally i'd be of the opinion that and ended it with but, hey, that's just me. i don't know either argument well enough to pick a side; and don't really care much about that particular debate.

More faith and assumptions. Dark matter's influence on the universe is not understood - but it DOES make up MOST of the universe. What you call "fine tuning" is simply the nature of that matter - much like gravity's nature is to pull things together. There is nothing improbable about it.

no, but the incredible preciseness at which it had to act in order to produce the result that it did makes it unlikely to have done so to the degree which it did on it's own.

There will always be theologians in his way - that can't change.

:lol: this guy wasn't talking about them being in the way; he was reffering to the Big Bang, and the theologians being right while science was wrong.

Perhaps that last mountain with its highest peak will have no traps of theology waiting on the summit - and that is the sign we have made our final climb, for it is then we no longer have mysteries requiring guesswork and faith to solve for us.

:) firstly; in order to know all that is in the Universe; we ourselves will have to supersede the Universe; by definition, we will have to become God.
secondly; it stands to reason that when dealing with these matters that there are correct answers and incorrect answers; as such, it stands to reason that there are not two "truths", and that the higher peaks of science will increasingly come more and more into contact with theology, not less.

[mataj]

the work of Jeffrey A. Zweerink; who is a research physicist at UCLA.Sheeesh! I asked you WHAT is this claim based on not WHO made it.

Physicist you say? Well, statements in physics are based on measurements. The most precise measurements we are able to make today are about 0.000001% accurate for mass, 0.0000000000002% accurate for time, and everything else somewhere in between. Such extreme accuracy can be achieved in specialized standard institutes (like ANSI) only. Usual laboratory equipment is far less accurate.

That Zweerink fellow might be the most popular physicist in the world, but if he makes conclusions based on something being 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% off, that has nothing to do with physics. Entertainment or theology maybe, but not physics.

Again: Conclusions in physics are based on measurements only. Period.

[Unrepentant]

So, we have a pretty good idea of the age of this universe. And we have some idea (though disputed, to be sure) of the statistical probability of forces like gravity being where they need to be to come to this. What we don't know is how many times the universe expanded and contracted until the one time the forces were right for the present situation. Maybe it was 10e37 times? Maybe it was twice? Hey, we're talking 'eternity' here, plenty of time to hit the jackpot. Maybe we'll know someday, maybe not, but statistical probability only has meaning in relation to all the times something happens. This wasn't necessarily a one time opportunity.

[mataj]

So, we have a pretty good idea of the age of this universe. And we have some idea (though disputed, to be sure) of the statistical probability of forces like gravity being where they need to be to come to this.Apart of multiverse theory which states, that our universe is only one of many, there are a couple of phenomena, which could have a stabilizing effect on the universe.

Vaccum energy, which counteracts gravity. With it, stable equilibrium is possible.
Observations of the (rate of rotation of indivisual stars in galaxies indicate, that gravity behaves differently on such large scale. Apart from dark matter, there are a couple of other possible explanations Quantum nature of gravitation
Leaking of gravitation into other dimensions
2nd Newtons law might not hold for extremly low accelerations. Possible reason could be quantum nature of interaction between mass, and acceleration.All this is just a speculation, of course. Exact nature of mass and gravitation is not known for the time being. Eventual discovery of the Higgs boson might provide some answers- in time.

[Platypus]

If the universe is infinite in either time or space, and/or there are multiple universes, there might be a near-infinite number of "dead" universes/cycles but the conditions would still seem "just right" in every last one of those where there was anybody to talk about it. It's not really such an amazing coincidence that requires us to make up unfalsifiable theories to explain it.

[Russikan]

secondly; it stands to reason that when dealing with these matters that there are correct answers and incorrect answers; as such, it stands to reason that there are not two "truths", and that the higher peaks of science will increasingly come more and more into contact with theology, not less.

Assuming that you are correct and arguing from that position again?

By the way I see no quotes from Einstien and since everything Newton says about Gravity is technicly untrue I would just as soon not take his word for the existance of God.

[Churlant]

:sighs: very well; prove, scientifically; the existance of gravity.

you can't; all you can do is show it's stastical liklihood is well past the 99.999% range. unless you yourself have complete knowledge of the entire universe, you can't prove anything.


Hm... I drop a shoe, it falls to the floor. There you go - proof. Unless you'd like to give another explanation for the shoe falling? Maybe God made it fall? I think you're getting too wrapped up in statistics.


no, but it bases some of it's theories exclusively on faith; as with materialism as i believe i illustrated a couple of posts up. furthermore, IDists do not argue from a theological standpoint; but rather a scientific one. else you have a great deal of difficulty explaining about all these agnostic/athiest scientists who become ID'ists. Einstein is the example i've given you several times, and which you've ignored.


Let me try this again: Please give me an actual link of Einstein's actual thoughts on the subject. It's not that I don't believe you, but I would like to see what you're basing your statements on.

Not that it matters. I really don't care how many famous names you pull out of a hat. The theory in ID is based on faith. You might be able to apply science (or more accurately, the gaps in our scientific knowledge) to its hypothesis, but you can't have it without believing in a God. When an 'atheist scientist' becomes an IDist, he/she is no longer an atheist. Agnostics already accept the possibility of a God, so their switch to IDism doesn't make a difference.



i have never argued this; astrophysicists don't know all; but they know significantly more about their subject than us; they are the experts, therefore, when discussing astrophysics; it might be wise to reference them.


If you want references, I can dig up many more "experts" who would toss the notion of ID out the window. I personally choose not to debate a topic based on how many people believe me versus how many believe you.... but really, if that's what you want to do...


actually that was merely an opinion, which is why i started it with personally i'd be of the opinion that and ended it with but, hey, that's just me. i don't know either argument well enough to pick a side; and don't really care much about that particular debate.


You should. It is part of your argument that gravity has a perfect speed. I point out a cause beyond some design. :shrug: What is an opinion if you have no faith within it? ;)



no,but the incredible preciseness at which it had to act in order to produce the result that it did makes it unlikely to have done so to the degree which it did on it's own.


Compared to what? Why is this entire ID thing based on how "likely" something is? This theory is quickly entering junk science territory. I can't even decide the basis for comparison here.

Do me a favor. Fill in the blanks:

It is 99.9999999% unlikely for gravity and/or dark matter to have such specific properties because ____________________ .

IF you are going to say "because if it worked any other way, life would never form"

Then please complete the following: Life would never form if Gravity worked differently because _____________________.


this guy wasn't talking about them being in the way; he was reffering to the Big Bang, and the theologians being right while science was wrong.


Trust me, they were in the way. Filling gaps with religion always gets in the way.


firstly; in order to know all that is in the Universe; we ourselves will have to supersede the Universe; by definition, we will have to become God.
secondly; it stands to reason that when dealing with these matters that there are correct answers and incorrect answers; as such, it stands to reason that there are not two "truths", and that the higher peaks of science will increasingly come more and more into contact with theology, not less.


Ah, but within quantum law there CAN me many truths to one question. This isn't grade-school science anymore. We don't just drop shoes and declare gravity known through and through. There are concepts that many make a hobby of avoiding - such as the multiverse or string theory. We enjoy things neat... but it doesn't work that way.

So... is Schroeder's cat dead or alive or both? :D Dead and Alive, of course. Two truths.

Now within RELIGION there can only be one truth - that is one of the reasons it makes such poor science. There is a refusal to accept more than one answer, or another answer, or even an answer one doesn't agree with.


If the universe is infinite in either time or space, and/or there are multiple universes, there might be a near-infinite number of "dead" universes/cycles but the conditions would still seem "just right" in every last one of those where there was anybody to talk about it. It's not really such an amazing coincidence that requires us to make up unfalsifiable theories to explain it.

Sorry Platy, but the idea of an infinite number (or even 2) of Universes is completely wrong - so says CP. I guess it's improbable or something.

-JC

[cpwill]

If the universe is infinite in either time or space, and/or there are multiple universes, there might be a near-infinite number of "dead" universes/cycles but the conditions would still seem "just right" in every last one of those where there was anybody to talk about it. It's not really such an amazing coincidence that requires us to make up unfalsifiable theories to explain it.

the universe is expanding; that means it's larger today then it was yesterday; thus, it can't be infinite in space. also, the fact that it is today proves that the Universe is not infinite in time; as does Big Bang theory; which has pretty much driven Steady State theory to the wings which also hold the aliens-are-responsible-for-life-on-earth theorists.

[cpwill]

Hm... I drop a shoe, it falls to the floor. There you go - proof.

no, evidence.

Unless you'd like to give another explanation for the shoe falling?

the shoe fell, so therefore it had to fall; that doesn't mean that gravity has anything to do with it.

Let me try this again: Please give me an actual link of Einstein's actual thoughts on the subject.

he had a number of quotes dealing with this subject; the most famous of which being the "God does not play dice with the Universe" line. After his visit to the Mount Wilson observatory (run by Hubble); he gave up on the eternal universe (steady state) idea based on the evidence he observed against it; declaring that it was "the greatest blunder of my life" and stating that he wanted "to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are just details." if you're asking for a link; i haven't got one on hand; i read. i'm sure, however, that you can apply a quick google for it.

Not that it matters. I really don't care how many famous names you pull out of a hat. The theory in ID is based on faith.

no, it's based on observation applied with reason. materialism is based on faith.

You might be able to apply science (or more accurately, the gaps in our scientific knowledge) to its hypothesis, but you can't have it without believing in a God. When an 'atheist scientist' becomes an IDist, he/she is no longer an atheist. Agnostics already accept the possibility of a God, so their switch to IDism doesn't make a difference.

wait a minute; so any scientific discoveries that a christian/muslim/jew comes up with is tainted and flawed due to the fact that they are religious?
:lol: materialists are just as (if not more than) prejudiced to their own interpretation based on faith than ID'ists are. ID'ists are at least willing to consider the possibility that materialism might be right; materialists are forced into creating non-falsifiable constructs in order to continue to deny even considering IDism.

If you want references, I can dig up many more "experts" who would toss the notion of ID out the window.

precisely; but they will not do so on actual scientific grounds; but rather on philosophical ones.

I personally choose not to debate a topic based on how many people believe me versus how many believe you.... but really, if that's what you want to do...

not at all (although i'd win; as i recall something like 8% of the country claims to be athiest?), if you can refute my points that i've labled above, or on the threads dealing with the new testament; i'd love for you to do so, as it would sharpen me.

You should. It is part of your argument that gravity has a perfect speed. I point out a cause beyond some design. :shrug: What is an opinion if you have no faith within it? ;)

so then you live your life on faith as well?
i prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate; it's my opinion; i could care less about the competing tastebuds and the science behind them, as it really isn't that big of a deal in my life. ditto for whether the universe is going to continue to dissipate or will retract. if you asked me offhand; i'd say dissapation; but, as i said, it's simply a guess and an uneducated one at that.

Compared to what? Why is this entire ID thing based on how "likely" something is?

because you can't really prove anything; all science deals with is liklihoods. that's why gravity is still a "theory".

This theory is quickly entering junk science territory.

materialism? yes, i agree; but i predict it's dying gasp has quite a bit to go here before it's completely gone :)

Do me a favor. Fill in the blanks:

It is 99.9999999% unlikely for gravity and/or dark matter to have such specific properties because ____________________ .

of the specificity which they have achieved in order for creation to happen.

IF you are going to say "because if it worked any other way, life would never form"

Then please complete the following: Life would never form if Gravity worked differently because _____________________.

the universe would have been unable to form galaxies; the planets would crash into their respective suns; jupiter wouldn't play the part of interplanetary goalie, etc. etc.

Trust me, they were in the way.

yeah, like that mendel guy,(father of genetics) newton, einstein and all those other complete wackos. what have they ever done for science? :p

Ah, but within quantum law there CAN me many truths to one question. This isn't grade-school science anymore. We don't just drop shoes and declare gravity known through and through. There are concepts that many make a hobby of avoiding - such as the multiverse or string theory. We enjoy things neat... but it doesn't work that way.

what your discussing here is not many truths; but complicated truths; which are quite different. it stands to reason that if two things stand in direct contradiction of each other; then likely one is right and the other is wrong.

So... is Schroeder's cat dead or alive or both? :D Dead and Alive, of course. Two truths.

forgive me, i'm not familiar with the illustration: Schroeders' cat?

[cpwill]

Now within RELIGION there can only be one truth - that is one of the reasons it makes such poor science. There is a refusal to accept more than one answer, or another answer, or even an answer one doesn't agree with.

no, within religious intolerants there is unwillingness to look at new evidence and new answers; just as within scientific materialists there is unwillingness to look at new evidence and new answers; there are always people searching; why do you think we've had so many reformations? why have so many religious people been scientists and visa versa?

Sorry Platy, but the idea of an infinite number (or even 2) of Universes is completely wrong - so says CP. I guess it's improbable or something.

infinitely repeating universes is indeed impossible. infinite universes has no evidence to it whatsoever other than wishes on a page.

[Platypus]

also, the fact that it is today proves that the Universe is not infinite in time
There are some Nobel prize winners who disagree with you. According to you, that means you should stop arguing.
as does Big Bang theory; which has pretty much driven Steady State theory to the wings which also hold the aliens-are-responsible-for-life-on-earth theorists.
Steady-state theory as originally proposed is pretty much dead, but oscillating-universe ("little bang") theories are still very much alive. You're mighty quick to adopt the consensus of the scientific community as your own when it suits you, even as you reject it on other occasions for no more reason.

ID is solipsistic. The Great Designer is twin to Rousseau's Great Deceiver, who most students got past in Philosophy 101 (though some had to wait for the movie version in The Matrix). It might seem like really deep stuff to someone who's stoned, but others have work to get done. Maybe we're all squid-like things swimming in vats with sensory implants feeding us the details of the world we think we perceive. Maybe your designer who manipulated physical constants to get the results we see was himself designed by another designer even more subtle, and so on ad infinitum. Whoa, man, that's heavy. :rolleyes: Almost by definition such things are a matter of faith, even to scientists who accept them in addition to theories that they can actually prove, and they should be left as matters of faith instead of being treated as equivalent to science. All theories are not created equal, and there's no such thing as affirmative action for ideas. Those who make a habit of rejecting out of hand others' theories about economics or Iraq shouldn't expect special consideration for their own pet theories.

[cpwill]

There are some Nobel prize winners who disagree with you. According to you, that means you should stop arguing.

:shrug: no nobel laurates that i am aware of are current opponents of the big bang system; and even if they were; that wouldn't mean (according to the logic i've utilized) that they are right; merely that they give some credence to the claim and make it bear looking at. however, as deals with time being infinite; that is indeed impossible.

Steady-state theory as originally proposed is pretty much dead, but oscillating-universe ("little bang") theories are still very much alive. You're mighty quick to adopt the consensus of the scientific community as your own when it suits you, even as you reject it on other occasions for no more reason.

:shrug: if any evidence can be shown for repeating universes i have no problem taking a look at it; and there's no reason at all why it's a threat to IDism.

ID is solipsistic.

??? no, my defense against churlant's claims that it can't be proven are solipsistic; ID is simply going with the reasonable conclusions of the evidence available; as even many of those in the other camp admit.

The Great Designer is twin to Rousseau's Great Deceiver, who most students got past in Philosophy 101 (though some had to wait for the movie version in The Matrix). It might seem like really deep stuff to someone who's stoned, but others have work to get done. Maybe we're all squid-like things swimming in vats with sensory implants feeding us the details of the world we think we perceive.

:shrug: you could argue it; but it's pretty dang unlikely so as to be unreasonable.

Maybe your designer who manipulated physical constants to get the results we see was himself designed by another designer even more subtle, and so on ad infinitum. Whoa, man, that's heavy. :rolleyes:

no, that's impossible, as time did not exist as such prior to the Big Bang, any being that existed prior to it would be definitionally infinite and as an infinite number of any chronological event is impossible.

Almost by definition such things are a matter of faith, even to scientists who accept them in addition to theories that they can actually prove, and they should be left as matters of faith instead of being treated as equivalent to science.

as i pointed out before, as statistically likely we can say gravity is, we can also say as statistically likely as ID is. and if this is your view, then why do you treat spontaneous creation of life as though it were science? there is no evidence for it; it has never been observed; for materialists, it is an act of faith.

All theories are not created equal, and there's no such thing as affirmative action for ideas.

:shrug: well, fine, but you tell the materialists that, cause i don't want to have to put up with their whining :p

Those who make a habit of rejecting out of hand others' theories about economics or Iraq shouldn't expect special consideration for their own pet theories.

i take or reject theories based upon the evidence, argument, and authority that i observe. as you stated, not all theories are created equal and i reject those which do not fit either the facts or reason; such as the idea that bush knew there were no wmd in iraq (if he was lying; how'd he convince ted kennedy, hillary clinton, and john kerry to lie for him years before he was elected?) or the idea that government is inherently more effecient than business (btw; i told my econ prof about that and he about bust a gut he was laughing so hard).

[mataj]

i take or reject theories based upon the evidence, argument, and authority that i observe.As far as physics is concerned, you observe mostly authority, or so it seems.

[cpwill]

indeed, as i am rather uneducated in it.

[mataj]

indeed, as i am rather uneducated in it.You should at least know it's basic principles, what physics is all about. Proving stuff by experiments & measurement, things like that. Haven't you heard anything about it in school?

[Mr Pariah]

:shrug: again; i'm not aware that ID argues a case for any particular motivation on the part of the Intellegence; merely that it exists.

Correct, ID outlines that certain complex features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. However, the Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause.

[JoeR]

Basicly what I get from this thread is that our current knowledge of science is not adequate to answer some of these questions. Other things that were explained in the past as being caused by gods are now understood in a scientific light, pushing God farther and farther back down the line of causes. I predict that no matter how far back we can scientifically explain the universe there will always be room for faith in a creator. Even looking at the multiverse theories, you could always pose the question who created the multiverse. Also though, it seems that God becomes more and more distant from us.

[cpwill]

You should at least know it's basic principles, what physics is all about. Proving stuff by experiments & measurement, things like that. Haven't you heard anything about it in school?

no, im' an american; all they teach us about in school here is how mcdonalds is good for you, people from other nations aren't really important, and George Bush is God's chosen representative on earth :D

[cpwill]

Correct, ID outlines that certain complex features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. However, the Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause.

bingo. thank you.

[mataj]

Correct, ID outlines that certain complex features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,Everything is best (and easiet) explained by an intelligent design. Alas, nothing can be understood or predicted this way.

[Redratio1]

Steady State theory to the wings which also hold the aliens-are-responsible-for-life-on-earth theorists.

What? Steady State theory is just the idea that the universe can be contiuous and infinite. It says nothing about aliens.

[Redratio1]

Correct, ID outlines that certain complex features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. However, the Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause.

And thus its is not a scientific theory in any sense at all. Since you have stated that it is untestable. In fact there is not test that can be done to prove this. If you could prove that an intelligent being directed day to day events in the universe,, outside of the testing of science, you would need to throw out science.

[cpwill]

What? Steady State theory is just the idea that the universe can be contiuous and infinite. It says nothing about aliens.

no, the aliens theory (or panspermia) holds that life was created here on earth by intellegent aliens; it was one of the more unusual theories that materialist devotees came up with to try to explain the complexity of first life. steady state has simply been so thouroughly disproven that both currently have about the same membership; and are considered psuedo-scientists at best.

[Redratio1]

Those are 2 different theories.
Steady state hasn't been proven untrue either. As your ideas of causality may be constructed under false assumption about the universe.

Great scientists call into question our assumptions about the workings of the universe, and test them against observation or experiment.

BTW, I don't think you are in any position to argue what constitutes peusdo-science.

[JoeR]

no, the aliens theory (or panspermia) holds that life was created here on earth by intellegent aliens; it was one of the more unusual theories that materialist devotees came up with to try to explain the complexity of first life.

The only thing I find unusual about that theory is that you would then have to explain the origin of the aliens.

[Redratio1]

Aliens, Gods.....its really the samething if you are talking about 3rd party involvement in the evolution of live on this planet. The aliens would be Gods to us.

As the Free Masons put it, God is the Great Architect. Alien technology advanced enough would seem just short of this.

[Russikan]

So cp since ID is so much of a better theory than evolution or, for that matter, than the theory of gravity perhaps we should wait ten years and then you can talk about how ID trumped evolution.

By the way, so you know one of the fundamental principles of quantum theory is that things can in fact have two truths or more.

And almost forgot 14% in 2002 were athiests in this country.

And because I feel obligated to point this out since no one else will, you must have a great memory to directly quote Einstein without any sources.

[cpwill]

Those are 2 different theories.
Steady state hasn't been proven untrue either.

no, it has simply been shown be so unlikely as to be beyond a stastically reasonable doubt, which is why it's no longer given much (if any) credit in scientific circles today. the discovery of the background radiation from the big bang and the observation of proto-galaxies (or, "seeds", as they were named by astronomer George Smoot; leader of NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer project) serve as two of the biggest nails in the coffin. :lol: the funny thing is, the people who discovered the radiation (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) were initially holders of the steady state-theory; as was einstein.

As your ideas of causality may be constructed under false assumption about the universe.

your attempt to call for a single exception in the Big Bang is in and of itself a logical flaw; you are claiming that because something happened, it had to happen. what caused the Big Bang? it cannot be material; for all material was created by the big bang. it can't be spatial or temporal for the same reason.

Great scientists call into question our assumptions about the workings of the universe, and test them against observation or experiment.

which is why scientists today deny that steady state theory has any scientific basis. however, there are places these same scientists will not go; and that is to be willing to forgoe their own assumptions.

BTW, I don't think you are in any position to argue what constitutes peusdo-science.

no, that's why i utilize the experts; who are in such a position (as neither you nor i are). besides which, logically speaking steady state theory is chronologically impossible; even forgetting the mass of scientific evidence.

[cpwill]

Aliens, Gods.....its really the samething if you are talking about 3rd party involvement in the evolution of live on this planet. The aliens would be Gods to us.

not really because then you have to explain the source of the aliens.

As the Free Masons put it, God is the Great Architect. Alien technology advanced enough would seem just short of this.

deists do; as far as i am aware, Masons hold to a general spirituality but don't have any particular articles of faith.

[cpwill]

So cp since ID is so much of a better theory than evolution or, for that matter, than the theory of gravity perhaps we should wait ten years and then you can talk about how ID trumped evolution.

i'm not saying that evolution is wholly without merit; nor that it was not the vehicle of our creation; i'm simply saying that as a science it doesn't tottally account for the result.

By the way, so you know one of the fundamental principles of quantum theory is that things can in fact have two truths or more.

not if/or statements; however, i'd be interested in this; mind putting up a source that has small words; or perhaps explaining it yourself? and how does quantum theory (say) apply to biological science?

And almost forgot 14% in 2002 were athiests in this country.

ooooooooh.........:p
athiests i'll admit i have more intellectual respect for. at least they have some kind of faith.

And because I feel obligated to point this out since no one else will, you must have a great memory to directly quote Einstein without any sources.

i have a so-so memory; which quotes would you like to know the source for?

[Redratio1]

your attempt to call for a single exception in the Big Bang is in and of itself a logical flaw; you are claiming that because something happened, it had to happen. what caused the Big Bang? it cannot be material; for all material was created by the big bang. it can't be spatial or temporal for the same reason.

Energy is matter and vis versa. It doesn't matter what the Big Bang was made of just that it had enormous potential energy. This is quite in line with current theory.

My point was that you would like to limit causality and insert God. However you have not shown your God is outside of causality. In fact God may be the cause of a very ancient universe, in which he decided to create this one from.

Another theory you could argue is that God could have created a universe infinite in space and time because he is God and is an exception to spacetime.

Its all trying to argue the improvable.



which is why scientists today deny that steady state theory has any scientific basis. however, there are places these same scientists will not go; and that is to be willing to forgoe their own assumptions.

The are mathematical ways you could have a steady state universe exist. The question is though is there are causal begining to any series of steady state universe theories?

no, that's why i utilize the experts; who are in such a position (as neither you nor i are). besides which, logically speaking steady state theory is chronologically impossible; even forgetting the mass of scientific evidence.

Perhaps only for this spacetime line. If it can be mathematically verified that there is a possiblity that a previous state before the Big Bang existed, then that would change a lot of ideas.

[cpwill]

Energy is matter and vis versa. It doesn't matter what the Big Bang was made of just that it had enormous potential energy. This is quite in line with current theory.

....?

My point was that you would like to limit causality and insert God.

no, i wish to point out that the law of causality states that all things which come to be have a cause; and that therefore as we now know that the Universe came to be; it needs a cause.

However you have not shown your God is outside of causality. In fact God may be the cause of a very ancient universe, in which he decided to create this one from.

i'm not quite sure where you're going with this: i see two possible lines of reason (please let me know which one is accurate): either God has created another universe before, or he is from a previous universe.

as for the first theory; i completely fail to see how that would change anything; as the previous universe still requires a cause.

as for the second, an entity which is inherently non-material non-spatial and non-temporal could by definition not be something that would exist within the confines of a universe.

Another theory you could argue is that God could have created a universe infinite in space and time because he is God and is an exception to spacetime.

if that is so then one has a difficulty explaining the mass of evidence behind big bang theory; furthermore, i'm not positive on how you'd go about arguing that there is more than one infinite, and also, how can something that is created be chronologicallly infinite? it is definitionally self-contradictory.

Its all trying to argue the improvable.The are mathematical ways you could have a steady state universe exist.

and there is a simple logical proof which shows that such is impossible.

The question is though is there are causal begining to any series of steady state universe theories?

by definition, if it were a steady state universe, there would be no cause; it would be self-existant.

Perhaps only for this spacetime line. If it can be mathematically verified that there is a possiblity that a previous state before the Big Bang existed, then that would change a lot of ideas.

but would not alter the argument.

[Redratio1]

....?

E=mc^2



no, i wish to point out that the law of causality states that all things which come to be have a cause; and that therefore as we now know that the Universe came to be; it needs a cause.

All things? Except God? Only our spacetime line seems to have a begining.

i'm not quite sure where you're going with this: i see two possible lines of reason (please let me know which one is accurate): either God has created another universe before, or he is from a previous universe.

God has created an infinite series of universes, or has been created by another universe.

as for the second, an entity which is inherently non-material non-spatial and non-temporal could by definition not be something that would exist within the confines of a universe.

Not like our universe perhaps.

by definition, if it were a steady state universe, there would be no cause; it would be self-existant.

No steady state only means it has been or is in a steady state. If it is an infinite steady state, it could still have had multiple states. If it was infinite single steady state thats something all together different.

There are multiple ways you can arrange your infinities.
There can also be a non-steady state infinite universe? Or a mixed steady state, non-steady state infinite universe?

An inifnitly with an origin. One sided infinity. Etc......

[Platypus]

No steady state only means it has been or is in a steady state. If it is an infinite steady state, it could still have had multiple states. If it was infinite single steady state thats something all together different.
Oh, you mean like "steady state" in the sense of something cyclic rather than static? I don't think they cover that one until the second term of high-school physics, so we might have to explain it a little. Would you like to try, or should I?

[Redratio1]

It can be cyclic or without cycles, or even be a series of plateaus or just one plateau.

A steady state can also be one sided infinite, with a start origin and no termination, or more strangly a steady state without a begining but a definite ending.

[cpwill]

E=mc^2

yeah, i know, i just wasn't quite sure about it's relevance.

All things? Except God? Only our spacetime line seems to have a begining.

read again; all things which come to be. any entity; therefore, that existed independent of and prior to the creation of the universe, therefore, by definition; would be chronologically infinite; as such they never came to be, and therefore, cannot have a cause.

God has created an infinite series of universes, or has been created by another universe.

no.1 i don't see any evidence for, but can accept; no. 2 is impossible

Not like our universe perhaps.

a universe without time, space, or matirial by definition is not a universe.

No steady state only means it has been or is in a steady state. If it is an infinite steady state, it could still have had multiple states. If it was infinite single steady state thats something all together different.

that is indeed what steady state theory claimed.

There are multiple ways you can arrange your infinities.

it would have to be spacially and temporally infinite; however, then you have the problem that either it becomes definitionally the First Cause (god); or it comes into conflict with said First Cause; both of whom are attempting to claim infinity over the same realm. as they obviously cannot share it (then they would have borders; and cease to be infinite); it is a direct contradiction.

There can also be a non-steady state infinite universe?

no.

Or a mixed steady state, non-steady state infinite universe?

runs into the exact same logical problems that the steady-state universe does.

furthermore there is precisly zero evidence for either of these options.

An inifnitly with an origin. One sided infinity. Etc......

is by definition not infinity; it has a border. however, if what you are thinking of is a +-------> figure , then i suppose what it would depend upon was whether it went in that direction or <--------+ this one.

[cpwill]

Oh, you mean like "steady state" in the sense of something cyclic rather than static? I don't think they cover that one until the second term of high-school physics, so we might have to explain it a little. Would you like to try, or should I?

infinitely repeating universes is equally impossible.

[JoeR]

Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply at a quantum level?

[cpwill]

well, as arthur eddington (contemporary of einstein's) once put it:

The Law that entropy increases - the Second Law of Thermodynamics - holds, i think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much for Maxwells' equations. IF it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experiments do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.

:shrug:

[Redratio1]

a universe without time, space, or matirial by definition is not a universe.

I think people from that univesre would be offended.


no.
Yes there could. Think about it. An infinite age universe that is in constant change but is not steady state.

furthermore there is precisly zero evidence for either of these options.

There is also zero evidence for any of what you have provided.

is by definition not infinity; it has a border. however, if what you are thinking of is a +-------> figure , then i suppose what it would depend upon was whether it went in that direction or <--------+ this one.

It is single direction infinity.

Infinities could be a series starting nowhere, or a infinite number of parallel universes, or infinite size but not infinite age universe.

Energy and matter are interchangable, so far as what conditions were at the big bang could very well tell us about something before the big bang.

[mataj]

no, im' an american; all they teach us about in school here is how mcdonalds is good for you, people from other nations aren't really important, and George Bush is God's chosen representative on earth :DNo wander Intelligent design is so popular there :(

Scientists, no matter how renowned, are just people, you know...
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html.

"We cant explain it, therefore it must have been created by superiour intelligence" is a pretty self aggrandizing stance, actually.

[Russikan]

It is a good thing we have cp to tell us everything that is or isn't possible even though he contradicts many prominent modern day scientists. By which I am refering to cyclic Big Bangs (not sure if this is the real name for it but someone said "little bangs").

And as for the 2nd law of Therm I am almost certain that uncertainty allows for the breaking of said law since regularly two particles can be created out of nothing simply by borrowing energy from uncertainty.

Look for my thread to be in the coming month (sorry I have a bit on my plate) describing quantum mechanics and various theories on the way the world works. Suggestions on what forum to put it in are welcome. I want to put in the science forum but I also want to put it in another since it is primarily for explination to those who don't know.

[mataj]

A bit more ID self aggrandization: "I can't explain it, therefore no other mortal can explain it, therefore it had to be created by something divine."

Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply at a quantum level?

http://www.drchinese.com/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics.htm
Abstract: The second law of thermodynamics has never been known (1) to have been violated. It retains the status of a law (2) because it cannot be fully deduced from the statistical mechanics, which is itself derived from quantum theory. It is shown that the second law is unnecessary if any of several common formulations are considered, and quantum theory is assumed. The asymmetry of entropy increase is also called into question.Comments:

(1) That means, that violation of this law had never been observed. It doesn't mean, that there are no violations.

Testing (experimentation, observations) can prove the presence of errors or flaws in scientific theory, mechanism, software, and so on. It can't prove their absence.


(2) Scientific laws have the same status as axioms in mathematics. They are deduced directly from observation or experiments, not from other laws. For example, electrical part of Maxwell's equations is law, magnetic part isn't. It's retained for historical and practical reasons. Magnetic Maxwell equation lost it's status of a law, because it can be derived from electrical equation using special relativity theory. At Maxwell's time, relativity theory was not known yet, and magnetical equation was based on experiments and measurements. It therefore had the status of a law.

Similarily, if and when 2nd law of thermodynamics gets derived from something else, like Quantum Mechanics, it will no longer be a law.

[DRMIZER]

Care to debate this idea? Seems some communities are pushing this idea to get around explicit statements of Biblical creation in relation to evolution.
My own thoughts are that this argument is quite old and am surprised to see it surface again: fallacious.Intelligent design works for me. It is an older idea but remains consistent with reason.

[cpwill]

I think people from that univesre would be offended.

people from that universe could not exist; therefore, i am fine with potentially insulting them.

Yes there could. Think about it. An infinite age universe that is in constant change but is not steady state.

an infinite age universe, however, is logically impossible. that is, of course; if you are willing to accept as an assumption your own existance.

There is also zero evidence for any of what you have provided.

i wouldn't know if i'd go that far; but, as i said in the beginning, i am only pointing out the statistically extremes that remove unreasonable theories.
furthermore, as regards the existance of a God; there is a wealth of evidence.

It is single direction infinity.

no, once something has a border; it ceases to be infinite. only in the imaginary world of mathmatics is it even possible to pretend as if this exists.

Infinities could be a series starting nowhere, or a infinite number of parallel universes, or infinite size but not infinite age universe.

an infinite number of simeoultaneously existing universes is possible, although there is no evidence for it. however, as i pointed out earlier; this doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the debate; what caused those universes?

infinite size universes, by definition, could not co-exist. in fact, were one universe infinite size; it would definitionally include all; which means that our non-infinite size universe can't exist.

Energy and matter are interchangable, so far as what conditions were at the big bang could very well tell us about something before the big bang.

as both were created by the big bang; they can only tell us about the big bang itself.

[Redratio1]

Energy and matter were not created from the big bang...our spacetime line was created.

[Churlant]

Well this thread has lived out its full potential, I think.

When debating a concept that is not fully understood and upon which rests assumptions about dozens of other concepts that are also not fully understood, I find that there is no point of continuing debate when anyone issues the term "impossible" as a defense against an alternative opinion.

As a matter of simple logic, such that this thread is supposedly based upon, declaring the unknown as an impossibility is... well... not possible ;)

-JC

[cpwill]

It is a good thing we have cp to tell us everything that is or isn't possible even though he contradicts many prominent modern day scientists. By which I am refering to cyclic Big Bangs (not sure if this is the real name for it but someone said "little bangs").

a finite number of little bangs presents you with the same problem; what kickstarted the first one? an infinite number of little bangs is logically impossible.

[Redratio1]

Still stuck in your causality problem? Just invent God to create an infinite series of causes. Poof! Infinite universes.

[cpwill]

you cannot invent or create or start a chronologically infinite being. it is self-existant.

an infinite series of causes created by God would also, by definition; not be infinite, as they would have a beginning.

[Redratio1]

The causes would be created. They sould manifest, and not be caused. As you said already, your idea of God is outside of spacetime.

[cpwill]

When debating a concept that is not fully understood and upon which rests assumptions about dozens of other concepts that are also not fully understood, I find that there is no point of continuing debate when anyone issues the term "impossible" as a defense against an alternative opinion.

As a matter of simple logic, such that this thread is supposedly based upon, declaring the unknown as an impossibility is... well... not possible ;)


chronological infinity is indeed impossible; it's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and as far as i've been able to see, it's rather rationally inescapable. basically: taking it as an assumption that it is currently today, that yesterday came before today and that tomorow will come after today; we see that time is chronologically linear: yesterday, today, tomorow. however, if time is infinite; then it means that the lines of both yesterday and tomorow extend indefinitely. however, if the number yesterday's is infinite; then we could never get to today; there would always be more yesterdays, pushing today further and further (infinitely) away. hence, if we do indeed exist (because that would require a today); then time cannot be infinite.

[cpwill]

The causes would be created. They sould manifest, and not be caused. As you said already, your idea of God is outside of spacetime.

my idea of the First cause is necessarily outside of spacetime because space and time did not exist prior to the big bang.

[Redratio1]

I'm just throwing out possibilities where that logic does not hold. Science about the big bang and it origins will change, and so will your idea about where to place God. I believe the same applies to the origin of life on this planet. You keep claiming that science is unable to disprove the ID aspect of life at the altar of science. That is ridiculous. Science isn't in the business of disproving the untestable. Soon science will uncover more secrets to the origins of life on this planet and then your objections will be moot, or will move.

[cpwill]

Science isn't in the business of disproving the untestable.

so then why the adherence to materialism.:rolleyes:

[Redratio1]

Science is about the material world. That is its domain. This is all meta-physics, and philosophy.

[cpwill]

but a blind adherence to material causes is simply an act of faith; furthermore, the theory that the entire world is simply material is in and of itself contradictory (if everything is material, then what is the theory made up of?)

[Churlant]

chronological infinity is indeed impossible; it's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and as far as i've been able to see, it's rather rationally inescapable. basically: taking it as an assumption that it is currently today, that yesterday came before today and that tomorow will come after today; we see that time is chronologically linear: yesterday, today, tomorow. however, if time is infinite; then it means that the lines of both yesterday and tomorow extend indefinitely. however, if the number yesterday's is infinite; then we could never get to today; there would always be more yesterdays, pushing today further and further (infinitely) away. hence, if we do indeed exist (because that would require a today); then time cannot be infinite.

:shrug: Paradox exists in science. What I said still holds. Determining the "impossible" from the unknown is inherently false regardless of how many arguments you want to use.

-JC

[Redratio1]

but a blind adherence to material causes is simply an act of faith;

No its not, its a testable reality. How do you think we have accomplished so much since the industrial revolution first started? It is because the science worked.

furthermore, the theory that the entire world is simply material is in and of itself contradictory (if everything is material, then what is the theory made up of?)

As I said, E=mc^2.

[cpwill]

:shrug: Paradox exists in science. What I said still holds. Determining the "impossible" from the unknown is inherently false regardless of how many arguments you want to use.

-JC

let me know when you're able to figure out a refutation or a way around it. until then, if you're stuck with the "yes, this is logically impossible but" argumentation.....:shrug::)

[cpwill]

No its not, its a testable reality. How do you think we have accomplished so much since the industrial revolution first started? It is because the science worked.

material things are a testable reality. materialism is not, as even it's practicioners admit.

As I said, E=mc^2.

doesn't change a single thing; what is the theory made up of? what is the material properties of consciousness?

[Churlant]

let me know when you're able to figure out a refutation or a way around it. until then, if you're stuck with the "yes, this is logically impossible but" argumentation.....:shrug::)

In response to Kalam:


But let us assume a more old-fashioned view of the Universe and move on to the second premise. As Craig correctly points out, the argument itself is quite simple, and most of the work on the argument is necessarily debate over the second premise and its implications. Craig uses two primary sub-proofs to demonstrate the necessity of a