The big bang or intelligent design

[Ganondorf]

yes --it's called Entropy.

I don't see where my statement goes against that.

Decay is also change.

Yes but where did the first things that decayed come from? If everything decays and turns to bascially nothing then how did something come about from nothing, for example how did life come from a bunch of changing and shifting molecules?

 

[ルカリオ]

Suppose if there were a supreme designer that was infinite, immortal, never had a begining or end. That would fill the blank in creation a little nicer then particalls randomly appearing wouldn't it?

But by doing that, you're only replacing the randomly-appearing particles with the supreme designer (which can also said to be a series of randomly-appearing particles); it's the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis.

You can't conceive that this is all random and we as sentient beings are merely trying to find order in what is likely complete chaos?

It isn't all entirely random; it is to an extent natural selection. Matter/antimatter collisions favoured the creation of matter. And the chaos isn't complete... yet.

Genesis can't be proven or disproven, this is a silly argument.

But the claims it makes can be proven or disproven. Archaeological evidence, for a start, indicates that the six-day Young Earth creation is unlikely.

This is interesting, as it's different from the normal Biblical Creation/ID vs Darwinian evolution debate.

Sigh, another dozen or so posts while I'm searching websites. Can I post links to one or two?

 

[maddiejoan]

Yes but where did the first things that decayed come from? If everything decays and turns to bascially nothing then how did something come about from nothing, for example how did life come from a bunch of changing and shifting molecules?

There has never been nothing. There has always been something.

The term "life" is an arbitrary term concocted by human beings to describe a phenomenon.

Robert Heinlein had a very good phrase to describe this.

"The universe is a thing we whipped up among us and agreed to forget the gag."

 

[Ganondorf]

There has never been nothing. There has always been something.

The term "life" is an arbitrary term concocted by human beings to describe a phenomenon.

Robert Heinlein had a very good phrase to describe this.

"The universe is a thing we whipped up among us and agreed to forget the gag."

Isn't the word phenomenon describing something that can't happen within the laws of science? And your quote appears to imply that we created the universe and... well can you interpret it for me I can't understand it?

 

[ルカリオ]

"The universe is a thing we whipped up among us and agreed to forget the gag."

Sounds like solipsism. Or rather, collective solipsism. "But that is a different thing;" as Eric Blair tells us, "in fact, the opposite thing."

 

[maddiejoan]

Isn't the word phenomenon describing something that can't happen within the laws of science? And your quote appears to imply that we created the universe and... well can you interpret it for me I can't understand it?

Uhm no --that's not at all what phenomenon means.

Phenomenon \Phe*nom"e*non\, n.; pl. Phenomena. [L. phaenomenon, Gr. faino`menon, fr. fai`nesqai to appear, fai`nein to show. See Phantom.]

1. An appearance; anything visible; whatever, in matter or spirit, is apparent to, or is apprehended by, observation; as, the phenomena of heat, light, or electricity; phenomena of imagination or memory.

In a sense we, as humans, created the concept of Universe by defining it.
If one is to argue that an intelligence guides the universe -- I would counter that this is nothing more than human intelligence attempting to make sense of chaos.

Sounds like solipsism. Or rather, collective solipsism. "But that is a different thing;" as Eric Blair tells us, "in fact, the opposite thing."

exactly so.

 

[Ganondorf]

Uhm no --that's not at all what phenomenon means.

Phenomenon \Phe*nom"e*non\, n.; pl. Phenomena. [L. phaenomenon, Gr. faino`menon, fr. fai`nesqai to appear, fai`nein to show. See Phantom.]

1. An appearance; anything visible; whatever, in matter or spirit, is apparent to, or is apprehended by, observation; as, the phenomena of heat, light, or electricity; phenomena of imagination or memory.

In a sense we, as humans, created the concept of Universe by defining it.
If one is to argue that an intelligence guides the universe -- I would counter that this is nothing more than human intelligence attempting to make sense of chaos.




exactly so.

So you are saying that if I define something that it exists in the physical world?

 

[maddiejoan]

So you are saying that if I define something that it exists in the physical world?

No.

I'm saying that the Human mind seeks to make order from chaos. It's hard-wired in our brains to do this -- Or we would all go insane.

 

[evkl]

First of all, as Douglas Adams pointedly noted, there are many ways archaeological evidence could be manipulated against is by a supremely intelligent species.

Secondly, no, Ganondorf, simply having more evidence isn't an evaluator of truth--that entire argument is invalid.

It's unlikely that the world happened according to Genesis, yes, most evidence points towards that. But, of course, that could just be what God wants us to believe. If there is a God, much less if He or She wants us to believe at all.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

This entire argument is theory vs faith. Neither can be backed up by anything other than supposition and belief, two things that mean absolutely nothing in a debate because neither can be proved or disproved. It's like debating what color your car should be.

 

[The Big Al]

I was rushed so I couldn't reply fully.

I don't like ID because they completely rule out the thought of evolution when it's a process occuring all the time. It's why we get the same cold this year.

Though, many who flaunt evolution also seem to miss its basis. It's a way of a species adapting to the changes of its environment through genetic mutation. Meaning genetic flaws appear and either they prove favorable in which they become the mainstream or unfavorable and are weeded out of the gene pool.

Evolution still doesn't describe how matter suddenly became life however just like the Big Bang theory doesn't describe how the singularity that created the universe came into being in the first place.

However, we're going by logic based on our limited knowledge of existance. For us everything falls within the realm of linear time. So it's logical to assume we can apply that to everything. Perhaps to understand the creation of the universe we have to accept the possibility of something not existing within linear time.

So while I believe God created the universe, I don't buy a fraction of the crap ID tries to sell.

 

[ルカリオ]

So you are saying that if I define something that it exists in the physical world?

Not quite, the definitions have to be used to describe the physical world. This is why the definitions change as knowledge expands. Classical (Newtonian) mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian relativity, when Einstein's ponderance of the speed of light showed that there were limitations in Newtonian mechanics. Again, quantum theory and M-theory have done the same with relativity. Just as Newton had defined the laws of motion, those definitions worked up to a certain point at which time new definitions were required. But the definitions must fit the reality, otherwise the definitions must be thrown away.

This entire argument is theory vs faith. Neither can be backed up by anything other than supposition and belief, two things that mean absolutely nothing in a debate because neither can be proved or disproved. It's like debating what color your car should be.

The difference is, theory is backed by experimentation, evidence, and yes, proof.

 

[Ganondorf]

But even that example can be won. Because the truth of preferance can depict that I said "I like red" then my preference for a car would most likely be red.

While we cannot argue to 100% truth we can get a close percentage and make our own intelligent choice from there. It seems awful hard to spawn choice and intelligence from a shifting and changing natural earth.

 

[evkl]

You're falling into logical fallacy when you suggest that "good enough" equates to "absolute truth." Laws in the scientific sense aren't just "good enough"--that's theories. Laws are true for given circumstances.

How can we measure the validity of the statement "I like red" in any empirical way?

 

[maddiejoan]

I was rushed so I couldn't reply fully.

I don't like ID because they completely rule out the thought of evolution when it's a process occuring all the time. It's why we get the same cold this year.

Though, many who flaunt evolution also seem to miss its basis. It's a way of a species adapting to the changes of its environment through genetic mutation. Meaning genetic flaws appear and either they prove favorable in which they become the mainstream or unfavorable and are weeded out of the gene pool.

Evolution still doesn't describe how matter suddenly became life however just like the Big Bang theory doesn't describe how the singularity that created the universe came into being in the first place.

However, we're going by logic based on our limited knowledge of existance. For us everything falls within the realm of linear time. So it's logical to assume we can apply that to everything. Perhaps to understand the creation of the universe we have to accept the possibility of something not existing within linear time.

So while I believe God created the universe, I don't buy a fraction of the crap ID tries to sell.

and your faith is perfectly valid. I have zero problems with faith especially when it is defined as such.

my own view is "I don't know"

 

[Ganondorf]

You're falling into logical fallacy when you suggest that "good enough" equates to "absolute truth." Laws in the scientific sense aren't just "good enough"--that's theories. Laws are true for given circumstances.

How can we measure the validity of the statement "I like red" in any empirical way?

Well can you say for certain that every man on the earth has died and been born at some point in his life? How do you make that assumption as a truth?

And
@ Maddie

Why didn't you just say you were agnostic earlier, if you're not sure of what really happened it's ok no one is one hundred percent sure in fact most people make daily decisions with much less then 100% certainty in fact I can't think of one thing that is 100% sure.

 

[evkl]

You can't determine that all men have died (there are some still living--prove to me that you will die! it's much more challenging than you think), but you can empirically go to each woman who's giving birth and determine that a child did come out, thereby proving (in theory at least) that an observer with sufficient resources and time could determine that all people are, in fact, born.

Edit: I can give you a few things with 100% certainty. A baby was born. A bowling ball will fall towards the ground if dropped. Among others.

 

[Ganondorf]

You can't determine that all men have died (there are some still living--prove to me that you will die! it's much more challenging than you think), but you can empirically go to each woman who's giving birth and determine that a child did come out, thereby proving (in theory at least) that an observer with sufficient resources and time could determine that all people are, in fact, born.

But how do you know that? Isn't your reasoning based on observation and what you have learned about the basics of life? Did you see or hear about your great great grandfather being born? Doubtless you might have heard he died but is there anyone who could tell you where, when, and offer proof? Basically I'm saying you don't have 100% eyewitness proof and about your edit:

If you are upside down a bowling ball appears to fall up lol but seriously have you seen every bowling ball on the face of the earth fall to the ground? If the ball is metallic and there is a magnet above you (powerful mind you) then wouldn't it go up?

A baby was born again did you see it? Who saw it, can you trust them? Why can you trust them? Why aren't they lying?

 

[maddiejoan]

Well can you say for certain that every man on the earth has died and been born at some point in his life? How do you make that assumption as a truth?

And
@ Maddie

Why didn't you just say you were agnostic earlier, if you're not sure of what really happened it's ok no one is one hundred percent sure in fact most people make daily decisions with much less then 100% certainty in fact I can't think of one thing that is 100% sure.

Right --but from an agnostic's point of view -if you want to convince me that something is 'true", I'm going to need to see your proof.

I've seen far more proof from the scientific community than from the religious community. Granted the religious community often chalks it up to faith.

In any event nobody has ever been able to prove, to my satisfaction, that an intelligence guides existence.

 

[evkl]

For me to be alive, my great-great grandfather had to be alive, by definition.

Edit: And addressing the 'lying' observer, I see no reason for the observer to lie--that's sort of a silly counterargument to my point, by saying that since we can't prove anyone to be honest, we can't know anything at all. We can empirically RECORD, if we so desire, video of the event, and theoretically establish a chain of custody to account for the video, if you wanted things to be so specific as to be bulletproof. But you really aren't addressing my argument as a whole, which is that there ARE things which can be known, although the things you assert can be known cannot, in fact, be known.

Edit2: We can take your application (somewhat foolishly) of the Socratic Method to its logical ends with any arguments, which will show that we, of course, know nothing beyond perhaps what Descartes asserted--I think, therefore I am, and some would even question our existence. But I would assert as premises that we are in fact alive and we do exist, as does the world we live in--at least in the present sense (its history is much more occluded), and we aren't in some sort of Matrix or something of that sort.