10 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwI don't believe in the type of ID Christians do. Tentatively, I think the universe itself is conscious and makes its own physical laws. I tend to believe that this cyclical and there have been many Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches (or something similar). I like to think that the universe is trying to make itself better in every new manifestion started by a Big Bang.
[b]"Why personalize the matter?"
This is so interesting even though I can hardly comprehend it all, but I have been enjoying the read through. JS357, LemonJello, DeepThought and others have produced an amazing debate.
I am woefully incapable of contributing, but I get the gist of it. I think. I want to ask you, without it being personalized or thr ...[text shortened]... a bit first. If you other fellows are reading this I would appreciate your exact answer as well.[/b]
This is somewhat akin to the concept of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism; a nondualist, pantheist belief system as I understand it.
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderCall it what you will. I think it nicely demonstrates the flaws in your rigged lottery fallacy that you are so fond of. If you paint the winning marble your chosen color, and all other marbles a different color, it results in apparently insurmountable odds, but its merely an illusion created by the holder of the paint brush.
This must be self-parody.
10 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt merely shows that you don't understand what the "black marble" is as opposed to the "white marble" means because you didn't bother to read my posts explaining it. It represents the universes where life is possible and the white marble represents universes where life is impossible. Change any of the physical properties mentioned to even a minute degree and you get a white marble. Therefore, it seems quite logical that the probability of a white marble is far greater than a black marble.
Call it what you will. I think it nicely demonstrates the flaws in your rigged lottery fallacy that you are so fond of. If you paint the winning marble your chosen color, and all other marbles a different color, it results in apparently insurmountable odds, but its merely an illusion created by the holder of the paint brush.
You're not seriously arguing that the only possible universe is the one we have, are you? Assuming you are not, then you must accept the possibility that some marbles will be white and some black if the properties of the universe are randomly generated. Therefore, your claims are logically incoherent.
EDIT: From the excerpt from the link I gave on p. 5:
But if there are millions upon millions of possible universes that would either fail or not sustain life, and almost none that would succeed and sustain life, then the probability of a successful and life-permitting universe coming into being is not at all the same as any other universe coming into existence.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwNot exactly. Faith is the route to confidence when evidence is lacking. (This is even in the Bible, Heb 11.1)
Then you believe faith is necessary to know whether all that exists exists by an act of creation by an omnipotent being?
Would such faith exist if no such being existed?
Such confidence can be misplaced.
Of course once confidence in ID is had via faith, the evidence seems apparent. Sonship cites people who attest to taking the opposite route, seeing convincing evidence, then getting faith. I'm not so sure about that. I only know it isn't that opposite way for me.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderHow does thinking that way affect your life? Do you hold the universe in more esteem and respect? Does it make the universe seem less cold and impersonal? Seems it would. I'm not being cynical and am not baiting you here.
I don't believe in the type of ID Christians do. Tentatively, I think the universe itself is conscious and makes its own physical laws. I tend to believe that this cyclical and there have been many Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches (or something similar). I like to think that the universe is trying to make itself better in every new manifestion started ...[text shortened]... f Brahman in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism; a nondualist, pantheist belief system as I understand it.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by C Hess"I can only conclude that for something to appear designed such that it must have a designer, there should be properties about the object that cannot be produced through a mindless, mechanical process. What those properties are I have yet to hear."
That's exactly the problem I'm presenting for premise 1. I've never been told what makes an object appear to be designed. But thinking about the problem, I can only conclude that for something to appear designed such that it must have a designer, there should be properties about the object that cannot be produced through a mindless, mechanical process. What t ...[text shortened]... ed YEC to be a failed position, but I'm curious about creationism that accepts observed reality.
So then you're saying you would believe that the universe had/has a designer if it could be demonstrated that what exists can/does prove that it was designed? That the objects in existence have properties or characteristics that clearly demonstrate that they were definitely created?
Do you feel at this juncture following the previous 9 pages that any positive proof for ID has been demonstrated?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI asked you several times to explain it, and you avoided my questions.
It merely shows that you don't understand what the "black marble" is as opposed to the "white marble" means because you didn't bother to read my posts explaining it.
It represents the universes where life is possible and the white marble represents universes where life is impossible.
Exactly my point. You are the painter, and you have painted the winning marble with your favorite color.
What I asked you to explain, is why you chose that color scheme - and you are yet to give an explanation.
Change any of the physical properties mentioned to even a minute degree and you get a white marble. Therefore, it seems quite logical that the probability of a white marble is far greater than a black marble.
Correct. An the same applies to my purple marble that represents the universe with a Qualix in. In fact, my purple marble is even rarer than your black marble.
You're not seriously arguing that the only possible universe is the one we have, are you?
No, certainly not.
Assuming you are not, then you must accept the possibility that some marbles will be white and some black if the properties of the universe are randomly generated.
Correct. But there is only one purple marble.
Therefore, your claims are logically incoherent.
In what way are my claims logically incoherent? Merely stating they are so isn't a logical argument.
But if there are millions upon millions of possible universes that would either fail or not sustain life, and almost none that would succeed and sustain life, then the probability of a successful and life-permitting universe coming into being is not at all the same as any other universe coming into existence.
True. Nevertheless, the illusion that the lottery was rigged is based entirely on the premise that we are special - something you have failed to give a justification for. Why did you choose 'life permuting' as your criteria for paint? You chose it because you already know the winning universe has life. If the winning universe had a Qualix, you would have used that for your paint scheme.
When you already know the winning lottery number, it starts to look special. But that doesn't suggest all lotteries are rigged.
When a similar trick was applied to your own existence, you immediately saw that it was logically flawed and refused to apply the same logic, but instead of admitting your error you started evasive tactics and accusing other posters of making it personal.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwIn my case, I would accept such evidence. I would even take seriously strong evidence and wouldn't necessarily require absolute proof.
So then you're saying you would believe that the universe had/has a designer if it could be demonstrated that what exists can/does prove that it was designed?
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonhouse"Well, since it seems clear no such being exists, yet faith exists,.."
Well, since it seems clear no such being exists, yet faith exists, it seems also clear that faith is misplaced and in fact used as a weapon to control people.
"WHY, IF YOU DON"T HAVE FAITH, YOU WILL GO TO HELL' and so forth. Weaponized spirituality.
Well, since it apparently can't be proven that such a being doesn't exist anymore than it can be proven that He does your faith is also misplaced.
Did you read those amazing posts in the last 9 pages? I had to read some of them several times. I think the case for ID was made, but not necessarily how you might think. Stay tuned. I'm going to really make myself look silly, soon I think. Yes yes, I know I already have, but really big this time. 😉
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk, but what if the designer designed the universe so that it could not be determined by what was created that it had a designer?
In my case, I would accept such evidence. I would even take seriously strong evidence and wouldn't necessarily require absolute proof.
10 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwWell obviously, looking at the absence of evidence for a designer would not convince me that there was a designer. It doesn't rule out the existence of a designer, but before one believes something exists one has to have some reasons to think so other than being unable to rule it out.
Ok, but what if the designer designed the universe so that it could not be determined by what was created that it had a designer?
Even if the universe does not appear designed, if there were independent reasons to think that it was designed, I would accept them if they were convincing.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Dec 14
Question to anyone:
Imagine a universe that is, in fact, hostile to biological life, but that is not hostile to such things as crystal formation and other inorganic phenomena that exhibit orderliness and that can be studied and described mathematically. The mathematics of crystals is rather complex but involves orderly categories of symmetry which can be correlated to properties of their individual atoms and molecules and the conditions under which they form. A planet having geology and water and a seasonal climate could exhibit periodic, predictable, orderly "behavior" and, due to such things as erosion, exhibit an overall "direction" or progression over its "lifetime."
Would this non-life sustaining, order-displaying universe be evidence for ID?
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy you are obsessed with the particular color scheme is a bit of a puzzle; I took it from an example already presented. I have no idea why you insist I must give you a further explanation for it.
I asked you several times to explain it, and you avoided my questions.
[b]It represents the universes where life is possible and the white marble represents universes where life is impossible.
Exactly my point. You are the painter, and you have painted the winning marble with your favorite color.
What I asked you to explain, is why you chose that ...[text shortened]... mitting your error you started evasive tactics and accusing other posters of making it personal.[/b]
That you insist that it is an illusion that the lottery was fixed, doesn't make it so; it's just an assertion without any basis in fact. You might be sitting next to me at Rick's and insist that it was an "illusion" that the Bulgarian husband's winning at roulette was fixed but since the evidence doesn't support your assertion I would rightly reject it.
These points have been covered ad nauseam. I don't feel it's useful to keep responding to same assertions over and over and over and over again. The "Lottery Fallacy" you are clinging to adds zero to the discussion; as pointed out several times it is a mere deflection.
Either start explaining why the universe has the properties it does or just admit that your entire argument consists of the assertion that an incredibly improbable thing just happened. You are entitled to make such an assertion, but I am not logically required to accept it. The evidence makes me believe that Rick arranged for the husband to win and following the same line of logic it makes me believe that the universe's physical properties were not just "s**t happens".
And I specifically responded to the assertion about my own existence and gave the reasons why it differed from the issue at hand so please stop blatantly lying about my posts.
EDIT: Here's a question for you; why does the universe have the properties it does?
10 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Probably.
How does thinking that way affect your life? Do you hold the universe in more esteem and respect? Does it make the universe seem less cold and impersonal? Seems it would. I'm not being cynical and am not baiting you here.
But I don't know. It's still pretty impersonal.