1. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    19 Dec '14 17:14
    Originally posted by JS357
    The woman is the vibrating plate and her hair is the sand. It's also her facial expressions. The visible effects of the auditory stimulus in the two cases are analogous.
    The woman was faking it.

    Are you that naive?
  2. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    19 Dec '14 17:17
    Originally posted by JS357
    What we call laws of nature are our best current understanding of observed regularities.
    But you don't think those observations justify identifying that the universe was created?
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    19 Dec '14 17:25
    Originally posted by josephw
    But you don't think those observations justify identifying that the universe was created?
    How do you think that argument would go? Observations of certain regularities do not, on their own, justify any conclusions about the origins of the universe. You'll need some ancillary premises to get to the conclusion that the universe was created by an agent. What do you take those ancillary premises to be?
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Dec '14 17:362 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    The woman was faking it.

    Are you that naive?
    And you think the sand wasn't?
  5. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Dec '14 17:38
    Originally posted by josephw
    But you don't think those observations justify identifying that the universe was created?
    We have a perfectly serviceable thread running, about design.
  6. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    19 Dec '14 21:30
    Originally posted by bbarr
    How do you think that argument would go? Observations of certain regularities do not, on their own, justify any conclusions about the origins of the universe. You'll need some ancillary premises to get to the conclusion that the universe was created by an agent. What do you take those ancillary premises to be?
    "Certain regularities" meaning the look of design? That the universe appears designed doesn't justify it was created? You need more proof?

    The ancillary premise is a final authority.
  7. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    19 Dec '14 21:35
    Originally posted by JS357
    We have a perfectly serviceable thread running, about design.
    This whole forum is about design. Every argument is over design. The question is who's design?

    Is there a final authority on all matters spiritual? If not, then there's no argument to be had. We're just pissing into the wind.
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    20 Dec '14 02:001 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    This whole forum is about design. Every argument is over design. The question is who's design?

    Is there a final authority on all matters spiritual? If not, then there's no argument to be had. We're just pissing into the wind.
    Oh you agree the question of whether the universe was designed is spiritual not scientific. We are together on this

    But: "Every argument is over design."??
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree