Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

I'd try to argue that. To be frank I don't see the conflict.
"On a long enough timeline the survival rate of everyone drops to zero."
The universe is pretty old, and we had several Earthwide catastrophes to
kill off life and make it reformat its genetic structure.
Imagine a place naturally quite a bit harsher, but with fewer worldwide catastrophes.
We haven't been able to calculate an edge to this universe yet.
How many of those worlds can you count?
Just saying.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Does it assume "purpose"?

Well, I dunno, does the moon have a purpose in relation to the earth?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

No. The Moon just is.

You're the one who said there is a creative force. You're the one who said we are the result of it.
Is there a purpose behind it?

Originally posted by LAkadian
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

I'd try to argue that. To be frank I don't see the conflict.
"On a long enough timeline the survival rate of everyone drops to zero."
The universe is pretty old, and we had several Earthwide catastrophes to
kill off life and make it reformat its genetic structure.
Imagine a place naturally quite a bit harsher, but with fewer worldwide catastrophes.
We haven't been able to calculate an edge to this universe yet.
How many of those worlds can you count?
Just saying.

A noble quest. Unfortunately, neither imagination or speculation are enough to change minds and hearts.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, I see what you are saying here. If it was precisely so, the earth would be a precise sphere and not one with a few bumps and rough edges.
So you deny that mathematics is found in the Universe? So man created mathematics. Nicely humanist.

Mathematics is found in the universe, but only in the minds of men. Mathematics is abstraction, but useful within the confines of human language.

It is abstract by its very definition:

mathematics |maTH(ə)ˈmatiks|
pluralnoun [ usu. treated as sing. ]
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics).
• [ often treated as pl. ] the mathematical aspects of something: the mathematics of general relativity.

Mathematics is the abstract study of quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and many other topics.[6] It has no generally accepted definition.

abstract
adjective |abˈstrakt, ˈabˌstrakt|
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence: abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
• dealing with ideas rather than events: the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention.
• not based on a particular instance; theoretical: we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner.
• (of a word, esp. a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object: abstract words like truth or equality.
• of or relating to abstract art: abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

No. The Moon just is.

You're the one who said there is a creative force. You're the one who said we are the result of it.
Is there a purpose behind it?

The moon doesn't help regulate things on earth? I thought it affected the tides and such? Oh fooey, now you are telling me there is no purpose whatever for the moon. It's just there as a random thing.

I've never said we can always understand the purposes. You are telling me there is no purpose whatever to the universe. So no creative force and no purpose. Hmmm, just doesn't seem right to me.

But of course you have a humanist viewpoint and I don't I think a creative force "designed" everything and in which man can operate and you think man created it. So for a purpose to exist, man must understand it?

i know only a few will believe this guy..but thats the real history of the moon:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


So the flowers and so on formed in a mathematical sense all because man created mathematics. Then man must have created the flowers?

I think humanists have it all backwards, and man just observes the principles involved. Man created symphonies by observing characteristics embedded within nature. He did not create nature itself. Why arel scientists continually seeking to prove theories of physics in the existing universe, and then you are telling me that it is all man made.
Sheesh
I happen to think man is part of the creation, not the creator itself. Humanists have a funny way of looking at things.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

So the flowers and so on formed in a mathematical sense all because man created mathematics. Then man must have created the flowers?

I think humanists have it all backwards, and man just observes the principles involved.

They formed how they formed, we merely look at it and describe in a mathematical sense.

Man thinks geometrically; there's much literature in linguistics and philosophy on this topic one might take a look at (Descartes and Leibniz for instance). Before Kepler, the Copernican system involved geometric circles; that in itself is quite telling of the arithmetical structure of human thought and language, which is a faculty also found in tribes far removed from such information outside their environment.

It's description.

I don't know if calling someone a humanist helps your argument, but if it makes you feel better, by all means.

Man thinks geometrically

reply to post by LesMisanthrope




How can man even think geometrically if there was not first a principle of geometry to think of.? See, I subscribe to the theory that man is a "co-creator" with God, and that we can create within the already existing parameters of the physical Universe.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

How about - philosophical reductionist materialist!

"lunatics"..

oh god..synchronicity..is such an awesome idea..

one day it will be clear that the moon was placed by intellligent beings..

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

They formed how they formed, we merely look at it and describe in a mathematical sense.

So no physics was actually involved in the formation of the Universe? It just happened sort of by accident?

Does a car run without some sort of physics principles? DId the car just accidentally build itself out of happenstance? So you say man built the car, I say man built the car out of existing principles. Can you create a car just by magically throwing a hodgepodge of junk together and saying abracadabra?
Saying that man created the Universe is the most patently ridiculous idea I've heard. Even observing the principles by which it was built and then saying man created that is also patently ridiculous to me.
If phsyics and mathematics is a conceptual thing, the concept first had to exist in the mind of God for it to exist in the mind of man.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
... look at it, look at the vibrancy of life on earth, all over the earth (for the most part), examine the qualities of the configuration and finely tuned balance, and then tell us how it is that on the one hand you say it's just a chance coincidence and fluke or throw of the dice

Now you do it AGAIN.

You again argue that it must be intelligent design since the alternative obviously can only be "chance, coincidence a fluke or a throw of a dice".

WHO tells you this nonsense that life and any potential life forms and the entire universe (essentially) is a product of "coincidence" or simply randomness?

Do you seriously believe that anyone who does NOT believe in ID is automatically believing it's all "just coincidence"? And this is the main point you guys *always* use, falsely and very naively I might want to add.

The example with the puddle is just brilliant because you will then also argue how incredibly perfect the puddle fits in the crevices..how on earth can it be..what a magic coincidence and incredible odds that are.

I said it in similar debates here earlier already, that for nature and life..there is no other possible outcome than a "finely tuned balance"...what ELSE should be outcome?

Do you think that fish would have developed wings to fly, although they would never leave the water? No..fish developed organs to be able to live/breath underwater. We "miraculously" developed bodies where we eat nutrients which exist on this Earth...and a body which uses the elements in our organism, say, for example we breathe oxygen. What ELSE should we have developed? A body that depends on some yet undiscovered element which doesn't even exist on Earth, let's call it "Boranium".....would logically not happen since "Boranium" doesn't exist on Earth. Thus...we breathe air/oxygen. Is this is miracle? No it's not..but it's ALSO not a "coincidence" or a throw of the dice.

We had millions of years to evolve and adapt..and there is no other fricking, possible outcome that the creatures which exists today are amazingly "fine tuned" with amazing features - there was never any other option than that because any creature which would be "less fine tuned" or flawed in some way would simply not survive.

Originally posted by kauskau
"lunatics"..

oh god..synchronicity..is such an awesome idea..

one day it will be clear that the moon was placed by intellligent beings..

No, you misunderstand. You are again ascribing an anthropomorphic form to the Creator, and I already said this many posts ago.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


She never said accident. She was merely trying to explain that we have clumsy methods of translating causality.

reply to post by flexy123

You've missed the point that the set up is perfectly tuned, as a precondition, to favor the evolution of life in all of it's forms here on earth, and that the configuration isn't random or arbitrary but poised precisely right on the fine line where the emergence of life is assured, even this life we see and experience. Again, the strong anthropic principal doesn't render the data meaningless.

reply to post by flexy123

since the alternative obviously can only be "chance,

Yes, the alternative is chance isn't it? Did chance build my car for me?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

She never said accident. She was merely trying to explain that we have clumsy methods of translating causality.

Oh perhaps that we do, but then we cannot assume that causality exists only because man has observed it. The last time I checked, the tides were happening without my express observation.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I thought it affected the tides and such?

It does. Is that it's "purpose"?

You are telling me there is no purpose whatever to the universe.

Am I?

Hmmm, just doesn't seem right to me.

You're welcome to your opinion.

But of course you have a humanist viewpoint and I don't I think a creative force "designed" everything and in which man can operate and you think man created it.

I don't recall expressing anything like that. I said that mathematics is a creation of humans. I didn't say man created reality.