My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 07:58 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;50370 wrote:
Surely a benevolent creator could have made a better way of energising our bodies, maybe by just standing in the sun and absorbing energy directly from it, like walking solar panels :perplexed:
I think that Berton Roueche wrote a short story about a scientist who'd engineered himself to be photosynthetic. Trouble is that we don't have nearly enough surface area to get all our energy from the sun. Alas, guess we'll have to eat our veggies after all.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 08:47 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

I don't think my stance is stubborn arrogance (I know you did any mean offense) My stance if you back track to former posts, you will read that I can be moved by telling logic as was I with the very informative and fact based posts by Aedes.

No, nor I. You've seemed quite open-minded and are quick to explore and discuss other avenues, respect to you. That's why I was keen to highlight that no offense was meant. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the case laid down in post 1, and indeed any other creationist theory based on the same starting assumption of humans as distinct from any other system. I think you're the polar opposite of arrogant, and I certainly never implied you were stubborn. It's the view of the necessity of human life that is arrogant, and it is universal (everyone has the same view at some point). It's just a descriptor, not an insult.

Alan McDougall wrote:

I might have moved from a position of ID to a belief that we are just enormously lucky, it was bound to happen somewhere and somewhen.

I still think (sorry) this betrays the same principle. We're not 'lucky' (in the evolutionist picture) - we evolved here determinstically, if unpredictably. It seems to me you keep imagining the world or universe under different conditions and consider how we would fit in. But there would be no 'we', thus no misfortune for us. We're not lucky that the universe is the way it is - we're here because the universe is the way it is.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Whatever we believe right or wrong will make no difference to the truth and I have not reached and might never reach the point were I will be absolutely positive about this topic.

If you guys give some honest reflection I think you will have to come to a similar conclusion

I tend to take scientific theory with a pinch of salt despite being a physicist (it never goes down well). Every once in a while you hit a theory that is so right in so many ways, that is so rigorously derivable from such near-as-dammit self-evident assumptions that it seems absurd to do anything other than embrace it. For me, relativity is one. Evolution is another.

Alan McDougall wrote:

If all we have in the eternity and infinity that is existence, is this tiny moment we call life, then chance has played a very cruel joke on all of us

On the contrary - if you ever change your mind you will be surprised how empowering it is.

Alan McDougall wrote:
So I rage and rage at the dimming of the light and fight against the coming of the eternal night

That's quite beautiful. I'm a songwriter... can I steal that?!?

Alan McDougall wrote:

Why must this entity be divine? I am not anti-evolutionist because the truth of it stares me in the face. But I retain sufficient objectivity to consider that there might be some great intelligent (not necessary Divine) that is experimenting with life on our earth.

Whatever you want to call it... it doesn't matter.
 
Bracewell
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 07:14 pm
@Bones-O,
Alan, when I saw this thread my reaction, like many others, was 'oh no, what is this doing in the science forum', but it has turned out to be a good read.

When people climb into an aeroplane they do not necessarily know much about the machine but they trust it works and that they will derive some benefit for their trust. I think a sensible religion is much the same in that it ministers to the important events in people's lives, e.g. birth, marriage and death and they are grateful for it. ID is not on the mind of many church goers, nor need it be. Similarly, ID is not in the mind of many scientists these days but perhaps to some extent it should be for the above reasons.

I believe that when Einstein was asked about the existence of God he replied that he knew of no reason why God should not exist (or words to that effect). But more than that, I don't think science is now so certain about the difference between matter and energy that nothing of us could live on (without any chance of an evolutionary interaction of course). However, this may be pushing Einstein's words too far.

On the question of knots, I would assume you would add each that was untied to your list of evidence?

I have no idea where these 'blethers' might go next but at least I'll get a nudge from the system if they do.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 07:51 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
?

You grudging agreement that there is beauty is heart warming. Yes I have experienced beauty beyond that of this world I have been clinically dead and what I saw was unimaginably beautiful.`

But lets leave it at that, I saw what I saw and and I am not going to try to convince you that there are dimensions, realms, both of beauty and light as well of dark and ugly that are realities mostly unseen

If you really think this little tiny dot of dust we call earth is all that is , you must have a very narrow outlook

Being a tiny entity in the vastness of existence, the reative force we call God is beyond human definition and if you read my posts I never try to tell anyone what god is or what god is not

It would be like a cockroach trying to fathom the space shuttle


You are mistaken. I wasn't grudgingly acknowledging that the world is beautiful, I was suggesting that your point, your argument, does not follow from that. You nearly died, were clinically dead, experienced something incredable; why invent something other than that experience and call it the cause? That is my only point. I love the world that I experience, not an abstraction that I have imagined and cannot experience. To each his own though Alan.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 07:11 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon

Quote:
That is my only point. I love the world that I experience, not an abstraction that I have imagined and cannot experience. To each his own though Alan


We need more people like you that love our world that is after all just a space ship floating in an infinite void. Our very limited narrow perception of what we assume is real and concrete might be an abstraction of some higher dimension Smile

Bracewell


Quote:
I believe that when Einstein was asked about the existence of God he replied that he knew of no reason why God should not exist (or words to that effect). But more than that, I don't think science is now so certain about the difference between matter and energy that nothing of us could live on (without any chance of an evolutionary interaction of course). However, this may be pushing Einstein's words too far




I like that! He also said God does not play dice with the universe, to his dying day he could not accept the craziness of quantum physics
Quote:



Bones-O!


I still think (sorry) this betrays the same principle. We're not 'lucky' (in the evolutionist picture) - we evolved here determinstically, if unpredictably. It seems to me you keep imagining the world or universe under different conditions and consider how we would fit in. But there would be no 'we', thus no misfortune for us. We're not lucky that the universe is the way it is - we're here because the universe is the way it is.


If we evolved deterministically, then who is/was the determinator, nature?, evolution? or chance ?

There are some who say it is not us that need the universe but it is the universe who needs us. Without an observer would it exist?

Quote:
I tend to take scientific theory with a pinch of salt despite being a physicist (it never goes down well). Every once in a while you hit a theory that is so right in so many ways, that is so rigorously derivable from such near-as-dammit self-evident assumptions that it seems absurd to do anything other than embrace it. For me, relativity is one. Evolution is another.


That is really refreshing it is physicists like you that let your mind explore the unknown. Einstein said his real inspiration that lead him to the Theory of Relative, was the realisation that a person who jumps from a roof is moving and stationary at the same time. :bigsmile:

If I could take this a little further, it must be true that I am stationary and everything in the universe moves around me and everything else is also stationary and everything else moves relative around it.

Nothing is absolute everything is subjective and relative (my quote)

You can use my other quote I am also somewhat of a poet Smile

Children sometimes up with the most profound questions don't you think


"Below are more ideas by me for you guys to strip to the bone"


We live in a world mostly defined by science which tell us how and why things work as they do. Scientists often tell us certain things are impossible and they mostly right. And yet there are some things where human logic simply cannot apply. The constant of the speed of light, the strange world of fundamental particles, non locality entanglement. It has been proven by physics that fundamental particles seem to be aware what another has doing, even if separated by vast distance. This suggest that it might be possible to transfer information at greater than light speed

There are experiences that many of us have that simply have no natural explanation. A child finding the specter of her dying mother standing at the foot of her bed at the very moment of the mother's death, which happened thousands of miles away. I am not trying to direct the thread into the realms of spooks, just making a point. There other ghostly realms on very edge of our limited perception, sort of glimpses we see of other realities De jay vu

Exactly what is life? Classical physics of an orderly universe was turned on its head in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. It was made obvious that despite the best science that certain micro physical events can never by predicted

When I look at an ant or termite or bee hive a see a group mind action, each worker equating to an obedient cell. Quantum physics has really shown that every particle in the universe is connected to every other particle in the universe

I have just been privileged to watch a TV documentary Dark Moon Rising, where all the astronauts in the Apollo Saturn 5 moon missions were interviewed. What impressed me is how many had a sort of an epiphany a realization that there is greater meaning and we are one great connected universe, all made of the same stuff

If you like some even found God

Why if an ant colony can have a group mind, why cant the universe to sustained by something similar

As an Engineer I have been part of huge projects like the construction of a 2500 megawatt power plant. If one looks it a detached and random way at the workers, they all seem to be moving without direction or purpose, some standing, some sitting, some climbing with nothing really happening.

If one could take a movie of the project over months of construction, it would appear that out of all the apparent chaos something or someone was directing these silly little beings.

Is this a god, not it is just a result of combined instruction coming together a coordinator. I have used the critical path technique as a senior coordinator directed the whole project by this method. The Apollo moon project was coordinated the same tool 350 000 workers and 100 000 companies all coordinated into one huge successful project

When I look at movies of this unimaginable event, I feel proud, to be member of the human race

So why is it silly to believe that out of the chaos of the universe a great coordinator was directing the whole thing



Coming back to evolution/ID we observe much the same thing, but after long periods of time there seems to me anyway a causative push from a universal mind directing creation much like a conductor directs his orchestra

We must rise up higher than religion, higher than present science and acknowledge at least there might me a director of our reality

The more we explore the micro realms, all we find is more emptiness, this is strange really strange :perplexed:
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 10:58 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

If we evolved deterministically, then who is/was the determinator, nature?, evolution? or chance ?

Nature, the laws of.

Alan McDougall wrote:

There are some who say it is not us that need the universe but it is the universe who needs us. Without an observer would it exist?

People need to feel special. That need tends to fly in the face of reason.

Alan McDougall wrote:

There are experiences that many of us have that simply have no natural explanation. A child finding the specter of her dying mother standing at the foot of her bed at the very moment of the mother's death, which happened thousands of miles away.

I have a natural explanation for that.

Alan McDougall wrote:
There other ghostly realms on very edge of our limited perception, sort of glimpses we see of other realities De jay vu

Isn't deja vu understood? Something to do with part of the brain getting infomation from one eye/ear after the brain has already processed information from the other..?

Alan McDougall wrote:

I have just been privileged to watch a TV documentary Dark Moon Rising, where all the astronauts in the Apollo Saturn 5 moon missions were interviewed. What impressed me is how many had a sort of an epiphany a realization that there is greater meaning and we are one great connected universe, all made of the same stuff

If you like some even found God

People are people everywhere... even in outer space. What you've nailed is one or more of the reasons why people need God, not why people realise there must be one.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Why if an ant colony can have a group mind, why cant the universe to sustained by something similar

Hive mentality is not the same as telepathic unity.

Alan McDougall wrote:

So why is it silly to believe that out of the chaos of the universe a great coordinator was directing the whole thing

Your example highlights the reason. On a construction site if there were no control, no instructions, nothing would get done: there are no natural laws of construction. A different construction site may work differently and build a different thing: the instructions aren't universal. Further, we can determine that the directions originated from a conscious being on a construction site. We can't determine this from the universe. Lastly, nothing seems to be being built in the universe. It appears to be expanding out into cold emptiness, bland space, or else crushed into the most powerful trash compactors imaginable. We only infer direction on our own planet, and this is nothing in the universe.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Coming back to evolution/ID we observe much the same thing, but after long periods of time there seems to me anyway a causative push from a universal mind directing creation much like a conductor directs his orchestra

That's a hell of an inference considering there are less 'out there' mechanisms at work.

Alan McDougall wrote:

We must rise up higher than religion, higher than present science and acknowledge at least there might me a director of our reality

I'm not feeling that impulse.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 02:07 pm
@Bones-O,
Read this essay by the brilliant mind of Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas: Five Arguments for the Existence of God.
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3:


It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good. Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.


Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation. It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist.

All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.


But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).
Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved.

Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized.

For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot. Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things.

For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect.

Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover.

For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."


The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence.

If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case.

Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."


The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time.

If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false.

Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity.

If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself.

That is what everyone calls "God."


The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum.

For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as

Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being. That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."


The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design.

Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."


To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."


To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.
___________________________________________
 
Allen phil
 
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 05:58 pm
@Alan McDougall,
The argument that God is the only explanation for the origin of movement, existence, or physical law has a weakness. I think an honest person would accept they don"t know the origin of all things and motions. Saying God did it, because there's currently no great counter argument kind of cheats the system in my mind anyway.

I conjecture God did not bring about existence, because God is an imaginary construct.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 05:14 am
@Allen phil,
I am not ready to close this thread so here is a few more points to consider

Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon the skeptical to validate its position.

Currently, the common alternative to Special Creation via a Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of Origins.

This is the accepted theory today. It is a wonder how this theory came to be accepted, as it violates two of the three Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Cause and Effect. Furthermore, as retrograde motion is observed throughout the universe, even within our own solar system.

The Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Beyond these violations of natural law, the Big Bang is unable to explain uneven "voids" and "clumps" throughout the universe. Plus, there remains the question, "where did the Big Bang come from?" This question remains unsolved, even in the minds of atheists. A few atheists hypothesize that the universe is eternal and only appears to have had a beginning. This contradicts quite a few empirical evidences and observations, as well as violating natural law


Is There a God?

"Is there a God?" Unless we can demonstrate the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default. The incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer. Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a Lawgiver.

Unless we are able to explain satisfactorily how each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force, and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is default.


Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator. Since everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have been a "First Primordial Cause" Indeed the "Uncaused Cause"

Furthermore, any derived conclusion must be within the bounds of natural law, as natural law is a part of the universe and remains unbroken within the universe.

????
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 07:45 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:


Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon the skeptical to validate its position.

Simply not true on either count. It is not the requirement of theists to prove God exists, nor on atheists to disprove God's existence. Most people, theist and atheist, would agree that God's existence or non-existence is not a measurable. Further, if I say X exists but there's no evidence for it, the burden of proof lies with me, not the skeptic.


Alan McDougall wrote:


The Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Beyond these violations of natural law, the Big Bang is unable to explain uneven "voids" and "clumps" throughout the universe.
[/SIZE]
This was always an issue in the big bang model, and there were others, which is why it was never considered complete. It was known at the time that in order for the big bang model to work, the universe must always have been homogeneous and isotropic. However a homoegenous and isotropic universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter (conservation laws) would have quickly annihilated anywhere. So why do we accept the theory? We don't. And if you know the reasons that the theory was superseded, you must also know that it was superseded (by the inflationary universe model which does allow the current state of the universe). Which begs the question... is this a straw man argument?

Alan McDougall wrote:

Plus, there remains the question, "where did the Big Bang come from?" This question remains unsolved, even in the minds of atheists.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Surely you mean "only in the minds of atheists"..? That's a credit to them, imo. There are theories (colliding branes, for one) but they're pretty fringe. The most we can do is postulate how a universe might get started.

[quote=Alan McDougall]
A few atheists hypothesize that the universe is eternal and only appears to have had a beginning. This contradicts quite a few empirical evidences and observations, as well as violating natural law
[/quote]
Such as..?



[quote=Alan McDougall]

"Is there a God?" Unless we can demonstrate the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
[/quote]
This is basically the difference between a theist and a scientist: a scientist defaults to 'we don't know'; a theist defaults to 'we know but we can't prove'.

Alan McDougall wrote:

The incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Really? Design implies designer? I'd have said design necessitates a designer. Looks like a fingers-in-ears type response.

[quote=Alan McDougall]
Unless we are able to explain satisfactorily how each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force, and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is default.
[/quote]
A supernatural creator you mean..? Uh huh.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 01:28 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan,

Some of these charges here are tired old misunderstandings. The laws of thermodynamics aren't written in stone any more than is Big Bang theory, and in fact the laws of thermodynamics are only valid for closed systems anyway.

And what's the law of cause and effect? We never learned about that one in physics.
 
webmaven
 
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 04:10 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I disagree with a simple point. a word called accident. What you are trying to prove in terms of ID is more or less based on incidental terms. A set of incidents planned and executed. The very fact that life is in existence on this planet is more or less a accident. Life on earth is a mere accident. A harsh reality.
Considering a few points...
There are bodies in the universe can be, might be , may have been grounds for life, It is because of the fact that life happens, hapenning or happened considering that the kind of life form(s) exist, might have existed or might come into existence in a atmosphere that supports existence to those particular set of life forms. This planet was never a object with life forms, life took place eventually, evolution is a word i would want to rise. Not to get into the further development of life, but to explain that life was in existence and grew in different forms because life had to suffice itself with what was available. This might have taken place, might been taking place, might take place in quite a few other celestial objects out there. Life is mere accident!! Never Planned and Executed.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 08:52 pm
@webmaven,
Hey Guys,

There is a universe where everything is impossible and nothing is possible (my own quote)

Question can such a place exist?


Each of us have valid arguments in this almost eternal debate. Perhaps the agnostic take on the matter, albeit slightly altered, for this debate might be the road to take.

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence or non -existence of an intelligent designer of the universe, scientifically or by circumstantial evidence. such as using the extreme exactitude of the fundamental constants that both sustain and allow for life to "EVOLVE ON EARTH" and "suggest to some that there just "might be an ID"!!

It beats me why this makes so many scientists so very very hot under the collar and even want to ban you from their high and hollowed forums, like I was. A terrible sinner against the great Bastien off science, that is little me folk.

No one can say for sure there is an ID unless they are buddies with god like the writer of "Conversations with God" Neale Donald Walshe, I absolutely do not agree with him , but countless are fooled and think he really has a hot line to the Almighty, and he has made a lot of money in the process.

Sorry guys a little unfortunate diversion by uncle Alan of the restless mind type. :perplexed:

Albert Einstein said in this vain, that he had no problem with anyone considering the possibility of a great intellect behind the creation of the universe, why not he said?. Admittedly he was an atheist but not an atheist with a mission to convert the world

My sister who has cancer of the liver and gets great comfort in her belief in a higher source, something enduring and positive, must I then go to her and do my uttermost to make her conform to my belief?, leaving her stripped of hope and the rudder of the ocean of her life broken

It is this type of atheism that I dislike as much as I despise exclusive religious fundamentalism

Peace chaps Smile
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 03:45 am
@webmaven,
webmaven wrote:
I disagree with a simple point. a word called accident. What you are trying to prove in terms of ID is more or less based on incidental terms. A set of incidents planned and executed. The very fact that life is in existence on this planet is more or less a accident. Life on earth is a mere accident. A harsh reality.
Considering a few points...
There are bodies in the universe can be, might be , may have been grounds for life, It is because of the fact that life happens, hapenning or happened considering that the kind of life form(s) exist, might have existed or might come into existence in a atmosphere that supports existence to those particular set of life forms. This planet was never a object with life forms, life took place eventually, evolution is a word i would want to rise. Not to get into the further development of life, but to explain that life was in existence and grew in different forms because life had to suffice itself with what was available. This might have taken place, might been taking place, might take place in quite a few other celestial objects out there. Life is mere accident!! Never Planned and Executed.
So the formula for life is an accident?..everything that exists is an accident?How do you define an accident? what constitutes an accident..I have never believed in the notion of an accidents , every event has a cause.It is the cause that we are looking at, what caused the formula for life to come into existence and when? Answer that with any certainty and you get a gold medal..
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:34 am
@xris,
Maybe an entity like this colossus made our puny little universe?

http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/53201/mr-universe-different-image.jpg
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 06:35 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Anthropomorphic Principle fail. Sorry.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 07:21 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;144311 wrote:
Anthropomorphic Principle fail. Sorry.
Why? :detective:
 
prothero
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 07:24 pm
@Alan McDougall,
[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;57620] Albert Einstein said in this vain, that he had no problem with anyone considering the possibility of a great intellect behind the creation of the universe, why not he said?. Admittedly he was an atheist but not an atheist with a mission to convert the world[/QUOTE] Albert Einstein was arguably not an atheist. He thought there was rational intelligence behind the universe. He saw god as rational and ordering agent but not as moral agent. He had some very unkind words for atheists and for those atheists who tried to count him as one of their own.

[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;57620] My sister who has cancer of the liver and gets great comfort in her belief in a higher source, something enduring and positive, must I then go to her and do my uttermost to make her conform to my belief?, leaving her stripped of hope and the rudder of the ocean of her life broken[/QUOTE] Winston Churchill who found himself unable to accept religion on a rational basis but always appealing for divine assistance when tragedy threatened said "believer or non believer, it is a wicked thing to deprive men of their hope".

[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;57620] It is this type of atheism that I dislike as much as I despise exclusive religious fundamentalism [/QUOTE] Your view of the universe whether it be (enchanted, living, mystery) or (mechanical, deterministic machine) is a "leap of faith" a metaphysical assumption and a philosophical speculation. Science does not confirm or support one or the other. Science is "just the facts, please. Like the dragnet detective you have to draw your own conclusions.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 07:52 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;144324 wrote:
Why? :detective:



Because he/she is claiming that, based off of subjective reasoning, that the universe and everything was made specifically for us. This is incorrect, we are a product of our environment; our environment owns us. It decides who/what survives.

Those reasons are why we are here and not the other way around. It's as simple as this: we are only here in our current state, because universal laws permit it.

Besides, I believe I disproved the notion of a creator in one of my threads: (don't worry about watching the first three videos, if you don't have the time.)

http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html
:a-ok:
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 08:35 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;144330 wrote:
Because he/she is claiming that, based off of subjective reasoning, that the universe and everything was made specifically for us. This is incorrect, we are a product of our environment; our environment owns us. It decides who/what survives.

Those reasons are why we are here and not the other way around. It's as simple as this: we are only here in our current state, because universal laws permit it.

Besides, I believe I disproved the notion of a creator in one of my threads: (don't worry about watching the first three videos, if you don't have the time.)

http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html
:a-ok:
I must agree with your reasoning.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 08:39:21