Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
Since I don't have the time to translate your posts, I'll just ask nicely: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE!!! Painting an outhouse gold and gluing diamonds on it doesn't change the fact that it's full of poop. So let's strip off the gems and gold and see what this argument is really talking about.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

The pretentiousness of your soliloquism does you a great disservice. Refusing to make the message clearer is a serious obstacle to appropriate debate. Unless that's the plan?

Likewise regarding your response to me, finding a correlation is not the same as providing verified and reproducible evidence. Stating something doesn't make it so, unless you are in church.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

Are you refusing to dumb it down for little ol' me? Why is that? If you want us to critique your essay, perhaps you should take our vocabulary into consideration so as to not make the examination process overly difficult for those of whom you are asking the favor.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What in particular can I clarify for you?

peter vlar

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
Since I don't have the time to translate your posts, I'll just ask nicely: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE!!! Painting an outhouse gold and gluing diamonds on it doesn't change the fact that it's full of poop. So let's strip off the gems and gold and see what this argument is really talking about.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

The pretentiousness of your soliloquism does you a great disservice. Refusing to make the message clearer is a serious obstacle to appropriate debate. Unless that's the plan?

Likewise regarding your response to me, finding a correlation is not the same as providing verified and reproducible evidence. Stating something doesn't make it so, unless you are in church.

While I did address the inherent shortcoming of the anthropic principle, this was not a statistical analysis. Suppose we have a set of systems. Included in this set of systems is every complex system known to man to be intelligently designed: computers, cars, airplanes, electric turbines, etc. From this set of complex systems that are intelligently designed it is possible to derive characteristics that are common to each of these systems. These characteristics are such that they are indicative that the system in question has been intelligently designed and engineered: complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Because these systems are designed they contain these properties. Consequently this set of characteristics which accompany every complex system known to man to be intelligently designed can be said to constitute a measure by which to discern systems that are intelligently designed.

We then take this set of characteristics that accompanies intelligently designed systems and hold them up against the Universe described by the physical sciences. When we do this is becomes clear that the Universe described is abounding with these very attributes. What do you say we should conclude from this?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


What is your basic premise and the surrounding argument? Please keep it simple and limit the flowery language. I'm not here to take a college course.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

These characteristics are such that they are indicative that the system in question has been intelligently designed and engineered:

Indicative, but not conclusive. What characteristics are these?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

These characteristics are such that they are indicative that the system in question has been intelligently designed and engineered:

Indicative, but not conclusive. What characteristics are these?

look again, I wasn't finished.

Please keep in mind that language is for communication, and while ambiguity may be useful to some people, it is not useful in intellectual intercourse. With this in mind the 'verbosity' of my writing is not in self-interest or intended to obfuscate meaningful discussion, but rather for the purpose of precision in communicating.

Indicative means to indicate. It means to give cause to believe something is true; to bring attention to something. Indications are certainly useful for reaching conclusions. The definition of the word according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

in·di·cate
1
a : to point out or point to
b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of
c : to demonstrate or suggest the necessity or advisability of
2
: to state or express briefly

If the change oil light on your cars' dashboard is on-assuming the mechanisms by which the indicator (the change oil light) works is not broken-can you not conclude that your oil needs to be changed?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Please keep in mind that language is for communication, and while ambiguity may be useful to some people, it is not useful in intellectual intercourse. With this in mind the 'verbosity' of my writing is not in self-interest or intended to obfuscate meaningful discussion, but rather for the purpose of precision in communicating.

Wow. You're so helpful. It's no wonder your thread has engaged all of two, maybe three people besides yourself. Not to mention you dodged my question in your pursuit of inventing excuses.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Please keep in mind that language is for communication, and while ambiguity may be useful to some people, it is not useful in intellectual intercourse. With this in mind the 'verbosity' of my writing is not in self-interest or intended to obfuscate meaningful discussion, but rather for the purpose of precision in communicating.

Wow. You're so helpful. It's no wonder your thread has engaged all of two, maybe three people besides yourself. Not to mention you dodged my question in your pursuit of inventing excuses.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry but what question did I dodge? Should I show you how I have gone out of the way more than once to restate and simplify these arguments.

What excuses?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

I'm sorry but what question did I dodge? Should I show you how I have gone out of the way more than once to restate and simplify these arguments.

Your last post to me was your greatest effort...before you refused to do it anymore after I asked about these characteristics. Make up your mind: either you want us to understand or you don't.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

I'm sorry but what question did I dodge? Should I show you how I have gone out of the way more than once to restate and simplify these arguments.

Your last post to me was your greatest effort...before you refused to do it anymore after I asked about these characteristics. Make up your mind: either you want us to understand or you don't.

Go back and count how many different ways I have presented this argument. I refused nothing. For honesty sake.

furthermore please understand that this argument from the appearance of design is only one such argument put forward in the discourse.

Yeah, the OP refuses to be straight forward about any of this. So I'm out.

Watch the above and ask whether the systems described exhibit the following:

mrphilosophias
complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy.

And this is only one such system. The neuron is part of the nervous system. The nervous system is one of the primary systems of the Human body. These characteristics which constitute an appearance of design are found in every nook and cranny of the Universe.

Here are other examples:

Cellular division


DNA Transcription


Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

AfterInfinity
Yeah, the OP refuses to be straight forward about any of this. So I'm out.

What is your explanation for the Universe and life AfterInfinity? Do you believe in God?

mrphilosophias

peter vlar

mrphilosophias

AfterInfinity
Since I don't have the time to translate your posts, I'll just ask nicely: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE!!! Painting an outhouse gold and gluing diamonds on it doesn't change the fact that it's full of poop. So let's strip off the gems and gold and see what this argument is really talking about.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think you will find it quite readable and easy to follow if you try.

The pretentiousness of your soliloquism does you a great disservice. Refusing to make the message clearer is a serious obstacle to appropriate debate. Unless that's the plan?

Likewise regarding your response to me, finding a correlation is not the same as providing verified and reproducible evidence. Stating something doesn't make it so, unless you are in church.

While I did address the inherent shortcoming of the anthropic principle, this was not a statistical analysis. Suppose we have a set of systems. Included in this set of systems is every complex system known to man to be intelligently designed: computers, cars, airplanes, electric turbines, etc. From this set of complex systems that are intelligently designed it is possible to derive characteristics that are common to each of these systems. These characteristics are such that they are indicative that the system in question has been intelligently designed and engineered: complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Because these systems are designed they contain these properties. Consequently this set of characteristics which accompany every complex system known to man to be intelligently designed can be said to constitute a measure by which to discern systems that are intelligently designed.

We then take this set of characteristics that accompanies intelligently designed systems and hold them up against the Universe described by the physical sciences. When we do this is becomes clear that the Universe described is abounding with these very attributes. What do you say we should conclude from this?

edit on 23-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

The diffrence between the systems you describe in this particular example at least, is that cars, planes, turbines are clearly complex machines designed by man but they are also static. They do not change at all and their intended function never alters. While slightly more malleable in regards to adaptivity even computers don't stray from their primary intended functions without outside assistance like a hardware upgrade or a virus. When you juxtapose that with biological organisms who's DNA can be altered due to environmental factors alone it seems like a fairly different thing to my eyes. A car or plane still needs outside assistance to function. Biological organisms are devoid of that particular hurdle. We have free will to choose whichever oath we desire no matter how illogical or harmful it could be to us. We have inherent genetic diseases that are a massive detriment to those born with then as we'll as their caregivers. That doesn't seem to me the hallmark of a guided all powerful designer. If it is the designer needs to get his/her/it's ass back in school and figure out why it can't get it right.

peter vlar
The diffrence between the systems you describe in this particular example at least, is that cars, planes, turbines are clearly complex machines designed by man but they are also static. They do not change at all and their intended function never alters.

I would disagree with this. Counter-example: the evolution of the jet turbine, or the evolution of the transistor.

peter vlar
When you juxtapose that with biological organisms who's DNA can be altered due to environmental factors alone it seems like a fairly different thing to my eyes.

Give me an example of this. However consider the example of a man who loses his arm in an accident at work. He gets home from the hospital and makes love to his wife. Will their child be born without an arm? What if instead of losing his arm he got cancer, would he pass it on? The only counter example I can foresee would be chemicals that cause birth defects, but these defects are never adaptive. More importantly they presume a reproductive system that abounds with the characteristics in question.

peter vlar
A car or plane still needs outside assistance to function. Biological organisms are devoid of that particular hurdle.

How can this be true? Much of said outside assistance necessary to function is built into the systems of the Universe. Consider how the body knows how to guide its growth and development, as complex as the phenomenon is. Biological growth and developments abounds with the characteristics defined to constitute an appearance of design.

How does the body know how to build proteins or complex micro-mahines? How does the body know how to build 216 different types of cell? Furthermore the cells mean nothing in and of themselves, and only make sense in the context of the system they comprise (e.g. a neuron and the nervous system). Furthermore the cascade of biological systems all presume the organism which they comprise. If life evolved then this would strongly suggest an appearance of foresite. Foresite would be an example of ingenuity in problem-solving, and would further support my position that the Universe has an appearance of design.

peter vlar
We have free will to choose whichever oath we desire no matter how illogical or harmful it could be to us.

This point is actually relevant to an entirely other philosophical concept I call the existential burden of liberty. Look up the word concupiscence. The matter of free will is not unrelated, but is another conversation all together.

peter vlar
We have inherent genetic diseases that are a massive detriment to those born with then as we'll as their caregivers. That doesn't seem to me the hallmark of a guided all powerful designer. If it is the designer needs to get his/her/it's ass back in school and figure out why it can't get it right.

edit on 23-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)

Your point is that one would not expect to find evil in a Universe created by a benevolent and all-might Creator. It is a serious challenge that has riddled the ages. Essentially what you are getting at here is the problem of evil, which is also an entirely other philosophical discussion, and it too is not unrelated. The question of salvation from evil in the Universe is a question of religion but has been alluded to briefly in the discussion that followed the discourse, but is not the fundamental question addressed in my discourse. The reason for this follows:

If I don't believe in God because science says so, then why would I believe there exists a loving God who desires and has made a provision for my salvation? I believe God has a laid out a plan for my salvation, and yours too if you would believe, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ His Son, and through His Church. That is my experience, and reason supports my contention. This too is another matter entirely. If you want to talk about it PM me and we can chat. First I would suggest taking an hour and reading one of the canonical Gospels; contemplating and praying on it. Have you ever?

a bump for this