General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2251701

    Possibility

    Locked

    by zealot144

    Why Can’t you see it? Drop the ad hominem BS for just a moment, and ask yourself “Why am I a Doubter”. Conversely, “Why am I so Sure”?

    The question posed for more than two millennium is not whether their is a creator, but whether you can see him (it/her). Naturalists wish to believe that EVERYTHING can be seen, and that which cannot be seen does not exist. To assume that everything can be seen is the apex of narcissism, yet this is the motor that drives science and naturalism. Science is beneficial. Naturalism is faith. It is necessary to define what the character of “natural” is, to exclude which is most difficult to see, or that which seems least likely, in order to be a “naturalist”. That which is extremely improbable or empirically invisible must not exist. But, that is essentially the description of our known cosmos.

    When brilliant mathematicians like Roger Penrose calculate the odds of our observable universe being so coincidentally appropriate to life as ten to the tenth to the negative one hundred fiftieth, a number close to the number of all particles in the known universe taken to the power of all the known particles in the universe, the word “coincidence” loses all meaning. Penrose was not yet considering biochemical complexities, only the coincidences of physics deployed in the big bang. Is this extremely unlikely? Is it more unlikely than “unnatural” or “supernatural”?

    The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution. One learned discourse I recently encountered in Uncommon Dissent was the “logical” claim that the universe not only created itself but also programmed itself to be perfect for life. This is an attempt to find a middle ground between teleology and naturalism. It walks around questions about primacy and information theory, not to mention probability and statistics. Which was, amazingly, the focus of the argument, that being that the cosmos is full of nonphysical realities like law, justice, truth, mathematics (philosophers wonder how everything seems so amenable to description by such a precise mechanism as ordered numbers), and a number of other abstract realities that don’t easily fall to scientific scrutiny, i. e., things that are real, but not scientific. Evolution has chosen to embrace such things and declare them the result of natural selection. The question of origins (biologically, at least) has been determined by Darwinism, so everything else logically must be the result of the same unimaginable cosmic coincidence.

    Darwinists view poor design, like Dodo birds or elephants, as evidence there was no designer. Yet, if evolution is driven by natural selection, the survival of the fittest, why did poor designs survive? Either they are not poor designs, or the concept of the quality of the design as driving force is suspect. The same reasoning applies to “vestigial” organs, assumed to be leftovers, but which may actually be useful. If they are leftovers, why wasn’t the design deleted long ago? Excess genetic baggage and excess tissue differentiation cannot be viewed as “naturalistically selected”. If they are not the result of natural selection, the assumption that “if there was a designer, then the designer is stupid” is even more stupid, as we cannot know the goals of the designer, and design of such complexity is truly beyond our wildest imagining.

    Even if we, as humans, can eventually engineer a living organism, it is only because we are emulating existing design paradigms within a cosmos already fortuitously amenable to the physics of life, environmentally, chemically, and astronomically.

    To look at a house and not know who it’s designer was is not only feasible, it is likely. I look at houses every day without any hint of who designed or built them. But, to look at a house and lack the mental capacity to realize that it WAS designed, that it was built, is inconceivable, regardless of intelligence. A monkey may see it as no more remarkable than a cave or a tree, but I don’t know any way any human capable of speech could fail to recognize design. And, the most complex structure ever made by man is less than a sandcastle compared to the convenient and interactive universe we live in. We are living inside a miracle. WE are a miracle.

    The question is not properly “What is SCIENTIFIC”? The proper question is “What is REAL”?

    MUST all of reality bend to the scientific method? If not, then is it not possible that not all of reality is comprehensible, since not all of what is “real” may be directly observable and quantifiable? Is it not POSSIBLE that some portion of REALITY may only be concluded by implication? Is it possible that there is SOMETHING outside our cosmos, something NOT constrained by time or the logic of primacy and causality? Is it POSSIBLE?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2500194

      Please expound on this!

      by dmambo

      In reply to Possibility

      Please, continue.

      • #2500177

        <>

        by charliespencer

        In reply to Please expound on this!

        Dude, you are an absolute hoot!

      • #2500164

        I have learned from experience

        by neilb@uk

        In reply to Please expound on this!

        To put my tea down when reading Mambo’s posts!

        Neil 馃榾

        The problem is that he will. I started my post before I read yours and I’ve answered him seriously. Given that he’s another Miami2Bad4TheRestOfUs clone, I should know better.

        If I do it again, it’s bitchslapping time and I’ll let Palmetto deliver it.

        • #2500150

          No No No

          by maecuff

          In reply to I have learned from experience

          Palmetto doesn’t administer bitchslaps, he receives them.

        • #2500130

          woohoo

          by shellbot

          In reply to No No No

          did i hear something about Palmetto & bitchslaps ??

          ]:)

          time to feed the trolls

        • #2500113

          then

          by rob mekel

          In reply to woohoo

          Jaqui should be around or … where the heck is GG

          Rob

        • #2500110

          its all very quiet

          by shellbot

          In reply to then

          around here today..

          well I’m off to go study for 3 hours now..i’m getting sick of computers now..this work and study is really cutting into my World of Warcraft time.. 馃檨 haven;t played in over a month..

          ugh..ADO.net here i come….

          we shake things up tomorrow eh Rob??

        • #2498663

          I’ve got to work occasionally

          by charliespencer

          In reply to its all very quiet

          My boss expects me to do more than hang out here. Narrow-minded, I know, but since I run the racing fantasy league I just take it out of his point total.

          I don’t like Jaqui’s slaps. I think somebody gave him a new bat for his birthday.

        • #2500109

          I just thought he might like to deliver one

          by neilb@uk

          In reply to No No No

          I did mean that he’d bitchslap Zealot. Not me!

        • #2498656

          You ‘just thought’??

          by maecuff

          In reply to I just thought he might like to deliver one

          Since when are you considerate of others? Please don’t do that anymore. It kind of messes with my tenuous grip on reality.

          Okay. That isn’t to say that you aren’t sometimes nice. But really, isn’t it more fun to watch Palmetto take his lumps???

        • #2498654

          I’ll show you my lumps,

          by charliespencer

          In reply to You ‘just thought’??

          if you’ll show me yours 馃檪

        • #2498650

          you should get

          by maecuff

          In reply to I’ll show you my lumps,

          extra slaps. Come on, really? You can’t do better than THAT?? It’s Valentine’s Day. At least be more explicit!! 馃檪

        • #2498648

          Dearest Mae

          by charliespencer

          In reply to I’ll show you my lumps,

          My feelings grow for you with each passing minute; and they’re not all. I know not how to demonstrate my emotion; but the little blue pill sure helps. Mere text does not adequately convey my yearnings; especially since I’m typing with one hand while the other is occupied.

          “Respect you in the morning? I don’t respect you now.”

        • #2498644

          odd conjunction here

          by jaqui

          In reply to I’ll show you my lumps,

          Valentines day is on … HUMP day.
          doesn’t it just seem.. so right? ]:)

        • #2498642

          Well, you had me

          by maecuff

          In reply to I’ll show you my lumps,

          right up to the ‘respect’ part. Like I recently told JD. I think you suck and I hope you die horribly.

          But I mean that in the nicest possible way. See, Mambo? I am too nice.

    • #2500167

      Assumptions

      by neilb@uk

      In reply to Possibility

      Your post is littered with prejudice!

      “The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution.” Only amongst that select band of Christian and Muslim zealots who see their Holy Book under threat. The last Pope had no problem with evolution.

      Your understanding of Darwin and natural selection is flawed. It is simply an explanation of the mechanism whereby we arrived at the species we have today. It says NOTHING about the first life or the beginning of the universe. Its success as a theory is simply because it is consistent and constrained. To declare that the success of this theory in explaining and predicting things that have, do and will happen in the biological sciences somehow part of a “plot” to deny the existence of God or Allah is ludicrous. “so everything else logically must be the result of the same unimaginable cosmic coincidence” is meaningless drivel trotted out from the fundamental deists’ fear that one iota of their precious book might be under threat. People who say things like that are SCARED.

      Those with an open mind are perfectly capable of embracing God or Allah (but NEVER both) and evolution without difficulty.

      The Dodo survived simply because it could. It only failed to survive when its environment changed with the coming of Man and Rat.

      “Even if we, as humans, can eventually engineer a living organism,” Oops! That would screw you up a bit, wouldn’t it?

      “MUST all of reality bend to the scientific method?” Fear speaking again.

      “There must be something more than this life”

      “I am so small”

      “Please help me”

      • #2498657

        I stand in awe.

        by charliespencer

        In reply to Assumptions

        Not of the quality or content of your response (which I frankly didn’t read), but that you went to the effort to wade through the original post and form apparently coherent replies.

        • #2498548

          Shock and Awe

          by neilb@uk

          In reply to I stand in awe.

          I’m in the midddle of a “new SAN” project which involves creating and transferring the data on several hundred disks. This involves an awful lot of watching files go by…

          To keep from going insane with boredom, I do things that are completely stupid so that I suddenly get a rush of adrenalin – WHAT ARE YOU [b]DOING[/b]? – that wakes me briefly.

          Reading MrMiamiGeobubIs2BadCozHesAFuckwit’s posts and attempting to answer them rationally is one of those.

          I even answered a question from a newb about the IF function in Excel without being in the slightest sarcastic. It was only [b]after[/b] submitting the answer that I stapled my thumb to the desk as punishment.

          Tomorrow, I will have to ramp up the adrenalin buzz and – maybe – see if I can get enough nerve to get Mae really mad at me. Now THAT can get the adrenalin flowing almost as much as the black gear and dark red lippy mental picture…!

          Neil 馃榾

        • #2498498

          He’s back..

          by maecuff

          In reply to Shock and Awe

          dunno if you saw this one yet. It’s kind of pathetic. He’s kind of like a scab, you know, you can’t help yourself from picking at it.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211410

        • #2498383

          I wondered about that IF function answer.

          by charliespencer

          In reply to Shock and Awe

          I did wonder why you just didn’t tell him to F1 for functions.

          If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
          If you teach him to fish, he spends all his money on accessories for the boat…

    • #2500154

      Wow, so much to choose from

      by tony hopkinson

      In reply to Possibility

      to choose from.

      Three quarters of particle physics have only been observed by implication.

      No one has even seen an electron ‘orbiting’ a nucleus.

      What does it mean an entity not constrained by time?. How does it percieve duration then, in fact how does it percieve anything?
      Not bound by our time, I’ll accept.

      So let’s say the creator can insert itself into anywhen in our time.

      We are bound by causality and time (it’s decision !), it is impossible for us to percieve any action such a being took unless they chose (or were forced) to act only in ways we could perceive.

      If something just appeared in our past, it was always there or it didn’t. If something appears now, big deal, if something appears in our future, as far we are concerned it does not yet exist.

      So even if this unconstrained being did design our existance, the very act precludes it from ever acting again unless it chose to become part of it’s own creation and be bound by it’s limitations.

    • #2500147

      Science or real

      by rob mekel

      In reply to Possibility

      Science means research checking out possibilities and yes some times try to predict a result. It has a lot to do with try and error/succeed.

      Fundamental research does bring new views on things there for it will bring changes to establishment/given “rules”

      For instance in the early 19xx the atom was the smallest particle mankind new. Now a day’s, at least I hope, we all know this isn’t so.
      Taken this to a larger scale …
      Why can’t the earth be the electron in a larger body … or … let our solar system be a chemical chain in a bigger body … an asteroid be a quarks … or …

      Fantasy can take you anywhere 馃檪
      Even to: may be true places 馃槈

      Rob

    • #2498471

      About Roger Penrose’s calculation…

      by absolutely

      In reply to Possibility

      Do you know what he took as “given” when he calculated the probability of our existence? I’ll give you a hint at my motive: my existence is not a probability, it is an axiom. Rene Descartes explained it to me.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

      • #2498457

        Actually, you’re all figments of my imagination

        by nicknielsen

        In reply to About Roger Penrose’s calculation…

        I think, therefore you are.

        “Of course I believe that solipsism is the correct philosophy, but that’s only one man’s opinion.”

        — Melvin Fitting

        • #2498382

          What’s behind you?

          by charliespencer

          In reply to Actually, you’re all figments of my imagination

          Did you ever wonder if nothing exists if you’re not looking at it, and when you turn your head everything is recreated from the mass of what you were looking at before?

        • #2511564

          Palmetto

          by maecuff

          In reply to What’s behind you?

          You’ve been bitch slapped one too many times, haven’t you?

        • #2511622

          It was a valid question, Mae

          by nicknielsen

          In reply to Palmetto

          And the answer is, if I don’t see it, it doesn’t exist.

          At least, according to the philosphy.

        • #2511615

          I have no problem believing that

          by maecuff

          In reply to It was a valid question, Mae

          my husband doesn’t see all kinds of things..you know, dirty clothes left on the floor, stuff like that. I guess that means they don’t really exist. Sounds like a good excuse to go shopping. 馃檪

        • #2490108

          Male enhancement

          by charliespencer

          In reply to I have no problem believing that

          Woman 1: My husband’s taking some of those “male enhancement” pills.

          Woman 2: Really? How’s that working out?

          Woman 1: Well, he still got a pot belly, leaves his clothes on the floor, won’t take out the trash, and doesn’t put the seat down. It hasn’t enhanced him at all.

        • #2490085

          re: male enhancement

          by rob mekel

          In reply to I have no problem believing that

          by “woman1 … pills” you did mean by any chance the Czech Pilsner ergo beer, that would be a very nice explanation for the rest of the story 馃榾 馃槈

          Rob

        • #2490110

          It was?!?

          by charliespencer

          In reply to It was a valid question, Mae

          I thought I was just being a smart @$$. Now it turns out I’m a philosopher. The hard part will be convincing my wife I’m one and not the other.

        • #2490104

          Well..

          by maecuff

          In reply to It was?!?

          you can keep company with Mr Miami, then. He is also a philosopher.

          Or, you could bitch slap him. Your call.

        • #2490059

          Keeping company with philosophers

          by charliespencer

          In reply to It was?!?

          I’d rather check my own prostate with a crook-necked squash.

        • #2490047

          Very descriptive

          by maecuff

          In reply to It was?!?

          Also, somewhat disturbing. 馃檪

        • #2490027

          Convince your wife?

          by dmambo

          In reply to It was?!?

          Your wife doesn’t believe you’re a smartass?

          馃榾

        • #2490006

          No it wasn’t.

          by absolutely

          In reply to It was a valid question, Mae

          It was a [i]diversion from[/i] a [b]valid[/b] question:
          Can the “brilliant mathematician”, Roger Penrose, justify calculating the [i]probability[/i] of the existence of humans that each of us knows axiomatically?

        • #2490004

          Occam’s Razor still implies …

          by absolutely

          In reply to What’s behind you?

          what is traditionally meant by the word “reality” even if your bizarre idea is “correct”. The additional complexity introduced by the idea that “nothing exists if you’re not looking at it, and when you turn your head everything is recreated from the mass of what you were looking at before” adds no predictive utility to the hypothesis as a description of reality, thus is invalid.

        • #2489988

          Works for me.

          by charliespencer

          In reply to Occam’s Razor still implies …

          I’m just spouting off, sort of ejaculation by keyboard.

          The original post struck me as the ramblings of a stoned mind, although the typing was obviously done by someone sober. I regret that DMambo posted his crack first, and that it was much funnier than what I had in mind.

        • #2489953

          :^0 ROFLMAO

          by nicknielsen

          In reply to Works for me.

          Digital gratification? :^0

        • #2489899

          I’m here all week.

          by charliespencer

          In reply to :^0 ROFLMAO

          Try the lasagna, and don’t forget to tip your waitress. Remember, the Wednesday matin?e is our “No Smoking” show. Thank you, and drive safely.

          The original post was difficult to read, more so to comprehend, and impossible to take seriously. This pinata needs several serious whacks, and I borrowed Jaqui’s bitch smack bat.

        • #2493649

          I agree, DMambo’s remark is [i]much[/i] funnier than yours!

          by absolutely

          In reply to Works for me.

          “Please expound on this!”

          I get a 10-minute workout for my stomach muscles [b]every time[/b] I load this page!!!

        • #2511565

          Perhaps I am a figment

          by maecuff

          In reply to Actually, you’re all figments of my imagination

          But I’m a good one.

        • #2490009

          I’m so glad I asked.

          by absolutely

          In reply to Actually, you’re all figments of my imagination

          That was helpful, Nick, thanks a lot.

          :p

    • #2490003

      Knock, knock, serious question.

      by absolutely

      In reply to Possibility

      How does Roger Penrose treat human existence as a probability to calculate instead of as an axiom?

    • #2493650

      Can you [i]disprove[/i] the existence of a teapot in orbit about the Sun?

      by absolutely

      In reply to Possibility

      Does your inability to disprove that teapot logically require the existence of that teapot?

      OF COURSE NOT!

      Does your inability to disprove that teapot logically permit agnosticism of the non-existence of such a teapot?

      OF COURSE NOT!

      If You expect Your imaginary friend to hold higher status in My Hierarchy of Values than an imaginary teapot, CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

    • #2493627

      re: “The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution.” UNTRUE!

      by absolutely

      In reply to Possibility

      Nobody has BARGED INTO YOUR CHURCHES screaming that you may not believe in your imaginary friend, because Darwin noticed that evolution from simpler forms to more complex, and selection based on advantageous adaptations offer a valid, logically consistent explanation of his observations. But, now that religious extremists have asserted the right to teach religion in public schools, it is high time to put an end to the insanity.

      The burden of proof is not on atheists to disprove the existence of celestial teapots!

      http://ffrf.org/events/2006/audio/harris.php

      • #2521752

        Waste of time I know but,

        by computerccu

        In reply to re: “The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution.” UNTRUE!

        Your assumption is wrong. People have barged into our children’s live and forced them to learn something we don’t believe, and you can’t prove. I never make some believe in GOD. The world makes my children learn about life without GOD, unhealthy sex, and many other things. I don’t care how you live or what you think, if you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you. Kill each other and give up the gift of life. If you ask, I will tell you a better way. I feel sorry that your unbelief will hurt you and your children though. Even if I were wrong, I have had a good life. If I am right, I have a great future. Hope you can say the same.

        • #2521635

          Okaay…

          by nicknielsen

          In reply to Waste of time I know but,

          [i]People have barged into our children’s live and forced them to learn something we don’t believe, and you can’t prove.[/i]

          What don’t you believe? Has somebody been teaching the wrong intelligent design to your children? What are you implying? Specifics?

          [i]I feel sorry that your unbelief will hurt you and your children though.[/i]

          Don’t you mean your unbelief? After all, it’s obvious, since we believe differently, that you are wrong and are going to that other place.

          Edit: To see where I’m coming from, visit this link with the understanding that I find it funny…http://tinyurl.com/2zap5x

        • #2521557

          You’re wrong.

          by absolutely

          In reply to Waste of time I know but,

          “The world makes my children learn about life without GOD, unhealthy sex, and many other things.”

          What they learn, versus what they merely observe and reject, depends on the example you set. The responsibility to provide an adequate role model for your children is yours, nobody else’s. Scapegoating to evade your personal responsibilities is pathetic.

      • #2521729

        Ah, Absolutely, that’s

        by rob mekel

        In reply to re: “The key argument for atheism has lately become evolution.” UNTRUE!

        the problem.

        “The burden of proof is not on atheists to disprove the existence of celestial teapots”
        To prove that something you believe in is true … can’t call it believing if there is prove can you 馃檪 馃槈
        so the minute the non-atheists “prove” they are right … they’re wrong, that’s the paradox.

        Rob

Viewing 7 reply threads