1 edit
Originally posted by princeoforange"By the way I do study physics and am well acquainted with the law of conservation of energy and momentum and also with the theory of relativity. They in no way disprove God's existance."
No, you idiot!
God can exist for ever because he is independant of matter. Matter cannot exist for ever as everyone very well knows, don't try to use sophism if you don't know how to.
By the way I do study physics and am well acquainted with the law of conservation of energy and momentum and also with the theory of relativity. They in no way disprove God's existance.
Indeed, they just prove that when you said matter can be destroyed you don't have the first clue about what you're talking about.
I don't know. I really don't. You, to me, represent the worst of all possible situations. You simply state that because you cannot explain something, you should give it a supernatural explanation. People used to drill holes in peoples heads, to let the bad spirits out, with that sort of thinking. I wouldn't mind if you'd even state your case in an eloquent fashion, using logical arguments. With that, I have no problem - ask FreakyKBH. But with you there is no thinking about plausible non-supernatural explantions, just an immediate, unthinking, jump out of the window of rationality.
[edit; "God can exist for ever because he is independant of matter."
Prove it.]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh, you're right...I am sorry.
For shame, KW! Haven't you heard there are no patterns, not even the slightest indication of design anywhere in the un-poetic universe? Get with the latest scientific theories, please.
Everything is chaos and has no rhythm, harmony or patterning at all...right. I forgot.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin.
But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Oops!
Freaky, my judgement of scottywateverhisnameis was milder than that, what gives you the authority to say I'll go to hell for saying something similar to what God's word says?
BTW, your quote was wrong, I suspect you were using a "new" version of the Bible, the AV is more accurate.
Originally posted by princeoforangeMy bad. Here's the version you're more accustomed to:
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
Freaky, my judgement of scottywateverhisnameis was milder than that, what gives you the authority to say I'll go to hell for saying something similar to what God's word says?
BTW, your quote was wrong, I suspect you were using a "new" version of the Bible, the AV is more accurate.
Matthew 5:22 (American Standard Version)
"...but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment;
and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council;
and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire."
Isn't that freaky? And I didn't say a thing!
Originally posted by frogstompHi ya FS. You've been scarce of late. In answer to your question, my answer would be an intelligent agent, since matter (and Nature) shows a rather structured (and rational) state. Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Surely the antecedent of reason is always reason.
Hi Ya Hal
Originally posted by HalitoseThis seems to be the default position of arguments against evolution and for intelligent design. How can it be that things so obviously designed, or things so obviously intelligent might have arisen randomly? How could intelligence arise from non-intelligence?
Hi ya FS. You've been scarce of late. In answer to your question, my answer would be an intelligent agent, since matter (and Nature) shows a rather structured (and rational) state. Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Surely the antecedent of reason is always reason.
I have no direct answer to this, but my default is not to resort to the 'wonder' position and claim that it could not occur naturally.
Instead I consider the apparent intelligence that arises in other situations - ant colonies for example, who's individual members are about as non-intelligent as they come, but when working together exhibit enormous levels of complex intelligent behaviour. I'm sure our brain works in an analogous way - dumb neurons that combine in complex ways to produce intelligent thought.
Originally posted by amannionGood analogy. recd
This seems to be the default position of arguments against evolution and for intelligent design. How can it be that things so obviously designed, or things so obviously intelligent might have arisen randomly? How could intelligence arise from non-intelligence?
I have no direct answer to this, but my default is not to resort to the 'wonder' position and c ...[text shortened]... an analogous way - dumb neurons that combine in complex ways to produce intelligent thought.
Originally posted by amannionI do have a direct answer. Any system which is based on rules and laws no matter how simple exhibits a pattern. In fact very complex patterns are expected rather than unlikely.
...... How could intelligence arise from non-intelligence?
I have no direct answer to this, ......
A demonstration of highly complex patterns from simple laws is Mandel Bro sets. (Just Google Mandel Bro for plenty of sites). The formula is simple - iterate Z=Z^2 + Z1 where Z is complex over the complex plane and you get an infinitely complicated and beautiful pattern that you would swear was created by an inteligent being.
In fact a study of Chaos goes hand in hand with Fractals which exhibit complex patterns.
Does God drive weather systems or is it complex patterns (clouds, storms, seasons winds rain) arrising from fairly simple rules. If ID proponents are to be believed then the beautifull shapes of most clouds is clear evidence that there is an "unknown" designer carefully designing each and every cloud.
Inteligence is merely a form of complexity. It cannot be truely quantified. Is an insect intelligent? Most deffinately. Are plants inteligent? Is sand on a beach intelligent?
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThis is not a "wonder" argument, bud, or an argument from ignorance. It was also not an argument against evolution. Evolution is not the equivalent of abiogenesis - the formation of life from non-life. It might have ramifications on your profound interest in defending evolution to the death, but it was merely a logical proposition.
This seems to be the default position of arguments against evolution and for intelligent design. How can it be that things so obviously designed, or things so obviously intelligent might have arisen randomly? How could intelligence arise from non-intelligence?
I have no direct answer to this, but my default is not to resort to the 'wonder' position and c an analogous way - dumb neurons that combine in complex ways to produce intelligent thought.
Could you actually prove that ants are non-intelligent and that the more ants you have the greater their nett individual intelligence? That is absurd. You can add non-intelligence ad nausium and you'd still be left with nada intelligence -- 0+0+0+0+0+0=0
The more ants you have, the greater the amount of work they can achieve, but this has nothing to do with their intelligence -- 1+1+1+1+1=5
They might even improve their knowledge by sharing information, such as where a food source is, but then again, this has nothing to do with their intelligence, actually intelligence is a prerequisite to this sort of communication.
Can you prove that the only cause of intelligent thought is the combination of neurons?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSimple laws? Do laws require intelligence to be put in place? Well, they sure require intelligence to understand them. A complex pattern is just that. Without any intelligence to observe and process it, you're still left with nobody to appreciate the aesthetics.
I do have a direct answer. Any system which is based on rules and laws no matter how simple exhibits a pattern. In fact very complex patterns are expected rather than unlikely.
A demonstration of highly complex patterns from simple laws is Mandel Bro sets. (Just Google Mandel Bro for plenty of sites). The formula is simple - iterate Z=Z^2 + Z1 where Z is ...[text shortened]... n insect intelligent? Most deffinately. Are plants inteligent? Is sand on a beach intelligent?
Originally posted by HalitoseI think the point is that an individual ant does not have the capacity for "intelligence", but ants (plural) are capable of achieving hugely complex structures (in terms of their nest). Thus complexity with no, or limited (at best), intelligence.
This is not a "wonder" argument, bud, or an argument from ignorance. It was also not an argument against evolution. Evolution is not the equivalent of abiogenesis - the formation of life from non-life. It might have ramifications on your profound interest in defending evolution to the death, but it was merely a logical proposition.
Could you actually pro ...[text shortened]... .
Can you prove that the only cause of intelligent thought is the combination of neurons?