- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Penguin1 - Sure there may have been an entity at the beginning who decided how the universe would work and what physical laws would define it, but that does not answer any questions at all, it just shifts them to another subject: where did the 'lawgiver' come from?
New member wading in without having gone through the previous 100+ pages. Aplogies if I brake any forum rules or conventions.
[b]You still cannot explain where matter and energy came from. Any law that exists has a lawgiver. The laws of Physics point towards a lawgiver.
2 points:
1 - Sure there may have been an entity at the beginning who decid ...[text shortened]... red religioins on the planet are wrong and I would simply up that number by 1.
--- Penguin[/b]
The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
2 - Evolution is not an attempt to explain the laws of physics, just how the current diversity of life came about. It does not even claim to address the initial starting point of life, only how it developed from that starting point. Can we restrict the discussion to the original question about evolution please?
My post was aimed at a certain individual who thinks that evolution rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
[b]1 - Sure there may have been an entity at the beginning who decided how the universe would work and what physical laws would define it, but that does not answer any questions at all, it just shifts them to another subject: where did the 'lawgiver' come from?
The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a b ...[text shortened]... ain individual who thinks that evolution rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer.[/b]
Then that perhaps is a question for another discussion topic. Maybe there was an uncaused first cause. I think its just as useful to think of the beginning of the universe as the prime mover than to think of an entity causing it. The issue certainly has nothing to do with evolution.
My post was aimed at a certain individual who thinks that evolution rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer.
Well I don't agree that it rules out the possibility because an intelligent designer is not a flasifiable concept. However, it does totally remove the need for an intelligent designer to explain the current diversity of life. If there is an intelligent designer, then they are incredibly inconsistant: the superb aerodynamics of a birds wing verses the braindead idea of having the signal wires for the eye passing in front of the light-collectors before diving through a hole in the retina.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinSpot on mate. You've represented my point of view so well I don't need to respond to deej at all!
[b]The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
Then that perhaps is a question for another discussion topic. Maybe there was an uncaused first cause. I think its just as useful t ...[text shortened]... n front of[/b] the light-collectors before diving through a hole in the retina.
--- Penguin.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinWell I don't agree that it rules out the possibility because an intelligent designer is not a falsifiable concept.
[b]The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
Then that perhaps is a question for another discussion topic. Maybe there was an uncaused first cause. I think its just as useful t ...[text shortened]... n front of[/b] the light-collectors before diving through a hole in the retina.
--- Penguin.[/b]
All you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design.
However, it does totally remove the [b]need for an intelligent designer to explain the current diversity of life.[/b]
How so? Does the evolution mechanism not consist of an intelligent process?
If there is an intelligent designer, then they are incredibly inconsistent: the superb aerodynamics of a birds wing verses the brain-dead idea of having the signal wires for the eye passing [b]in front of the light-collectors before diving through a hole in the retina.[/b]
What makes you think that that is bad design?
To the contrary, to appreciate the complexity and sophistication of the design of the eye, you need to understand the function of the retina. The retina lines the back of the eye and acts as a type of film, receiving the actual image composed of light photons passing through the iris, cornea, and eye fluid. Your retina is thinner than paper, yet it's tiny surface (only one square inch) contains 137 million light sensitive cells. Approximately 95 percent of these cells are rods that can analyze black-and-white images, while the balance of approximately seven million cone cells analyze their colour images. Each of these millions of cells is separately connected to the to the optic nerve, which transmits the signal to your brain at approximately three hundred miles per hour. The millions of specialized cells in your eye can analyze more than one million messages a second, and then transmit the data to the brain.
The retina in your eye is the most light sensitive object in the Universe. It is more sophisticated in it's design than even the most powerful electron microscope or satellite spy camera. For example, the most advanced film available today can differentiate and analyze a range of one thousand to one. Experiments have revealed that the retina of the human eye can actually detect one single photon of light in a dark room, something far beyond the range of any engineered optical instruments.
Now my dear sir, the ball is in your court. Would you care to explain how such a complex and intricate optical system as the human eye can develop through random chance mutation?
The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
You have asked us previously to infer a designer from things that looked designed. You have asked us to infer a lawgiver from laws. These arguments (taken from Paley,Strobel, Craig, etc.) beg the reader to extrapolate from their own experiences with natural things. In nature, designed objects do have designers and human laws do have lawgivers. Ironicaly for you, in our experience, all lawgivers have causes as well. Human lawgivers all have parents for instance. In light of this, your statements amount to the same question-begging displayed long ago in the Cosmological Argument, and penguins questions remain unanswered.
I don't know why some one would say that evolution rules out an intelligent designer. The "intelligent designer" is so vaguely described and loosely bounded that essentially any possible observation could be consistent with it.
All you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design
Which is impossible because a sufficiently powerful and intelligent designer could always manufacture something that appears to lack intelligence and design.
To give you an idea what I'm talking about.
If I place 10 rocks in a cup and then toss the rocks into the air, and they fall to the ground in a particular pattern, how could some one later ascertain that this pattern came about from what was essentially a random process rather than from another process where I carefully place each rock in its location?
How so? Does the evolution mechanism not consist of an intelligent process?
Umm . . . are you equivocating on the word in 'intelligent' here? Show us your definition of intelligent and we'll be able to answer your question.
dj2becker actually wrote this
To the contrary,
this portion was poorly plagerized from http://www.konig.org/wc170.htm
to appreciate the complexity . . . engineered optical instruments.
back to dj2 again
Now my dear sir, the ball is in your court. Would you care to explain how such a complex and intricate optical system as the human eye can develop through random chance mutation?
Already been done.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Originally posted by dj2beckerPoor, poor arguments deej. Your brand of "logic" has not matured with age.
[b]Well I don't agree that it rules out the possibility because an intelligent designer is not a falsifiable concept.
All you have to do is prove a lack of intelligence and a lack of design.
However, it does totally remove the [b]need for an intelligent designer to explain the current diversity of life.[/b]
How so? Does the evolution m ...[text shortened]... lex and intricate optical system as the human eye can develop through random chance mutation?[/b]
It is unnecessary for the evolutionist to prove a lack of design. The presence of design is a far less parsimonious argument. For design, there must be a designer. You have no proof of this. For evolution, you need genetic diversity and differenetial death. Both of these are shown. Prove your designer or sod off.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by telerionIn light of this, your statements amount to the same question-begging displayed long ago in the Cosmological Argument, and penguins questions remain unanswered.
[b]The universe can be shown to have a beginning. The lawgiver need not necessarily have a beginning. The only thing that would make sense is an uncaused first cause. The lawgiver could perfectly well fit that description.
You have asked us previously to infer a designer from things that looked designed. You have asked us to infer a lawgiver from l ...[text shortened]... ed and loosely bounded that essentially any possible observation could be consistent with it.[/b]
An argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today could not have come (which it has). This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed - that is, we have arrived at today - it follows that there must have been a finite number of moments before today. That is, that time has a beginning. But if the space-time universe had a beginning, it must have been caused to come into existence. This cause can only be an uncaused first cause. Therefore the question of where the uncaused first cause came from is as meaningless as asking who is the bachelors wife.
I don't know why some one would say that evolution rules out an intelligent designer. The "intelligent designer" is so vaguely described and loosely bounded that essentially any possible observation could be consistent with it.
I think you might just be realising how difficult it actually is to explain away the existence of God. 😉
I would however disagree that the intelligent designer is vaguely described and loosely bounded, if you take the God of the Bible as the intelligent designer.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou should look up Aristotle. It was he that decided that infinite regressions are not the way to go, and dreamed up the ludicrous concept of an uncaused cause. An uncaused effect, however, is not ludicrous [edit; provided you can step out of the "cause and effect" trap, which you can, during the big bang, because of the lack of time].
[b]In light of this, your statements amount to the same question-begging displayed long ago in the Cosmological Argument, and penguins questions remain unanswered.
An argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwis described and loosely bounded, if you take the God of the Bible as the intelligent designer.[/b]
There are 100 billion neurons in the brain, about as many as stars in the Milky Way. Then there are 1,000 synapses for each neuron. That means there are 100 trillion synaptic Connections in
the brain -- or the equivalent of 40 Manhattan phone directories times 100,000 in each noggin. Put another way, it would take 30,000 years to count every synapse if we could count one per second, which we can’t. And that means you’re wearing on your shoulders the most
complicated machine in the universe." Rene Peterson
I don't have enough faith the believe that matter randomly organized itself into human brain over millions of years. I think there is an intelligent design behind this creation.
And to think that all the instructions to link up these neurons is in the embryo. The connections are precise, billions of them. This is not throwing up the hands and saying such a wonder should not be diligently studied. It is an inquiry that another explanation beside intelligentless Darwinian natural selection could account for the system.
As for new organisms, at the present time I'm considering Nilsson's ideas.
That is drastic alterations in the production of gametes, during catastrophic periods, might lead to sudden "emication". Catatrophic episodes on the planet may have led to sudden emergence of new organisms from altered gamete production.
This is not an endorsement of everything this particular researcher has proposed - Nils Heribert Nilsson who theorizes "Synthetic Speciation"
Originally posted by dj2beckerEek! Is it not bad enough that you continually murder science in these forums, but now you're murdering philosophy too? Christ man! Has there not been enough suffering already?!
[b]In light of this, your statements amount to the same question-begging displayed long ago in the Cosmological Argument, and penguins questions remain unanswered.
An argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwis ...[text shortened]... described and loosely bounded, if you take the God of the Bible as the intelligent designer.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillEvolution is non-random. It is the differential survival of "good" configurations over "bad" configurations. Whilst genetic changes within individuals are random, evolution as a process is not. This is not the same as saying it is directed by a sentient being however. Many processes, such as sedimentation of silt in a river, are non random, but not consciously directed.
[b]There are 100 billion neurons in the brain, about as many as stars in the Milky Way. Then there are 1,000 synapses for each neuron. That means there are 100 trillion synaptic Connections in
the brain -- or the equivalent of 40 Manhattan phone directories times 100,000 in each noggin. Put another way, it would take 30,000 years to count every synapse if w ...[text shortened]... earcher has proposed - Nils Heribert Nilsson who theorizes [b]"Synthetic Speciation"[/b]
An argument that the universe had a beginning - and hence a beginner - comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today could not have come (which it has). This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed - that is, we have arrived at today - it follows that there must have been a finite number of moments before today. That is, that time has a beginning. But if the space-time universe had a beginning, it must have been caused to come into existence. This cause can only be an uncaused first cause. Therefore the question of where the uncaused first cause came from is as meaningless as asking who is the bachelors wife.
Dj, I know what you're talking about. That's why I mentioned the Cosmological Argument. The problems I see are that
1) you claim all laws have a beginning (this may not be true, even if this universe has a beginning).
2) you assume that time is discrete and linear. Consider the following variation of Zeno's paradox. Think of a runner who is but one step away from crossing the finish line. He takes the final step and wins. But now think about the moments between his pentultimate step and his final step. We can find a moment where the runner was halfway between these steps. We can then find a moment halfway between that moment and the final step. We can find a moment halfway between that and the final step, and so on. Extending this thought process we see that there are an infinite of such moments between the pentultimate step and the final step. How could the runner have traversed these infinite moments? He should never have arrived at the finish line! As I see it, your argument cannot stand up to Zeno's paradox.
3) You claim that the only cause of our universe could be the "First Cause." This is proposterous. There are an infinite of hypothetical causes for our universe. Even if there exists a chain of events that lead back to your particular uncaused cause, there is no reason to assume that the first cause is the immediate step before the beginning of the universe.
I think you might just be realising how difficult it actually is to explain away the existence of God. 😉
Starting? I've realized this even long before my deconversion. Disproving the existence every arbitrary super-duper being is basically impossible. That's why you can cheer for Jesus, and I can cheer for Muffy.
I would however disagree that the intelligent designer is vaguely described and loosely bounded, if you take the God of the Bible as the intelligent designer.
Of course you would, but the God of the Bible is sufficiently elastic that he can be stretched and molded to fit the data. That's how the Answers In Genesis, the Discovery Institute, Kent Hovind, Ken Hamm, etc. make their millions.
Originally posted by jaywill
I don't have enough faith the believe that matter randomly organized itself into human brain over millions of years.
Neither do most of us. Go learn a thing or two about 'natural selection.' As a child, I had to suffer through years of your wacky science. The least you could do is go learn some of the established stuff.