Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

I almost agree, ceptin one little inference that your comment contains. You seem to imply that the faithful are not knowledgeable. I disagree that is always the case. I am knowledgeable on many subjects and also well-read and have an strong grasp of certain ones, yet I have a very strong faith.

 

True. I am a man, not God. Convincing someone is God's realm.

 

nm.....

 

Kharakov

Not a fact at all...Your opinion only.
Because people do not desire to admit themselves ignorant.
They call their opinions..'fact'.

Ego.

Occam

 

Gecko

So there is no observed evidence of a complex entity that
'intelligently designed' reality.
But
There is a COMPLEX reality. And that is no assumption.


The 'fundies' you wish to go away..Are looking for the reason behind that
COMPLEX reality.
As is Occam.
They do it by accepting. Accepting explanations/descriptions of a
god/complex entity from human books and religions.

Occam does not.

Thus occam holds very little evidence whatsoever in a scientific sense
that there is any 'god or grand design'
As opposed to the religious who have piles of opinion..and even less
evidence [in a scientific sense]

When will we come to know our limmitations in this matter?

Leucippus coined the word 'atom' in 440bc as a 'concept' to
describe the structure of mater.
Humans use the word 'god' as a concept to describe the
cause of reality/life.
We are no more able in this age of technology to actually 'observe'
the cause of reality/life.
Than Leucippus was able to see an atom.

To know if there is a god. We need to be less ignorant.
Not..more faithfull.

Occam

 

I did not follow everything that was mentioned before but I agree with the "fact" that humans beings don't enough their limitations. I we think about basic questions like "If there is a God, who created him?" There is no end to these kind of basic questions and the more you think about them, the more it can drive you nut because nobody knows the answers and we will probably never know them in this lifetime of another. That's why we make ourselves feel more secure by trying to find a theory or a religion that is the closer to what we individually or collectively make sense. But we'll never know if it makes senses... It's only comforting to believe in something... What do you think?

 

occam,

complexed reality at our quantum level is but simple energy exchanges on another.
The human propensity to personify is what's getting in the way.

If a Great Architect exist, it shall remain hidden as long as we seek it among ourselves.

Reasons behind existence? Human reasons?

Energy flows; Entropy MUST increases. That is the basis of existence- god's will.

Why? A very human question, requiring a human answer.

But a god would not be human, and thus the answer is void, the question null.

We must seek the IS, not the fundie SUPPOSE.

 

Gecko

Yes entropy increases..But slowly in human terms or even stellar.
While life and the objective laws allows INCREASING MASSIVE complexity and organisation WITHIN the framework of entropy.

Organised structures are the key..Not the constraint of entropy.
Entropy is to organisation as gravity is to mater.

Occam

 

Kikine

Those questions are called 'infinite regression'
They are moot if we say all mass/energy/space has always existed in
one form or another.
Who says that god created everything?
When there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict the idea
that everything has always existed..and always will.

Humans.
And humans are not often correct.

Occam

 

theres no evidence saying that we arent in fact in 'the matrix' either, do you believe in that?

 

sorry im stoned i misread

 

Occam,
I view organized complexity as eddys and back flows (as required by Uncertainty) within the general flow toward chaos (entropy). In the end, the Universe is organized toward Entropy.

It is not possible to build complexity without increasing Entropy.

 

Nah, I have factions, not opinions. Many, many warring factions.

Actually, it is true. You won't know the truth unless you are called to the truth (which you are).

I humbly acknowledge this fact.

 

"Factions"- with different opinions.

There is no Truth- just Reality.

 

Gecko

So you would label the massive stellar structure and evolution to complexity of observable reality..
400 billion gallaxies. 10 ^22 power stars.
Who knows how many billions of species of life...

As eddies and backflows?

Occam cannot agree. Entropy is a law just like all the others..
If entropy was THE LAW...
There would be no structure in reality but clouds of hydrogen.

Occam

ps.."in the end the universe is organised towards entropy"

1. Really?..who or what organised it so?
2. SO organisation comes BEFORE entropy?
[thats a pretty potent 'eddy/backflow' effect.]

 

occam,

gravity is the background of the Universe. It is, very nearly, an entropic sponge.

The intial breakdown of Chaos that caused the universe has been regrouping ever since. Within that "flow", a very small (relative) amount of matter is fromed. Remember, the Universe is mostly "empty" space, occupied by gravatic, (and possibly) other forms of energy.

"1. Really?..who or what organised it so?"
A religious question? It's a description (and a scientificly valid one at that), not a reason- no "who" is required

"2. SO organisation comes BEFORE entropy?"
How you reach this illogical conclusion is a mystery.

If the Universe contained but single star, that star would eventually nova- and than gravity would pull it back together. It would than be accurate to say, "the Universe is organized toward star". This is analogous to the breakdown of the intial Chaos.

For the record: Entropy- the tendency of energy to return to it's original state of Chaos.

 

geckopelli,

quotient,
you make too many unqualified assumptions:


Well, I apologize if this is the way it appears, I try to make very few assumptions. I think there is much more agreement on this thread than there is disagreement. I believe that belief claims are very hard to support with validity and the truthfulness of belief claims are almost impossible to prove. I was quoting someone much more learned than myself extensively with in the context of disputing the validity of the Miller experiment, which is presented to young minds as fact of science proving how life started (cause) which it clearly does not. So we agree that assumptions without evidence can not be taken as truth.

"The fact is that there is evidence for which the only plausable explanation is intelligence."
Then by all means state this evidence. In all the history of humanity, no one ever has.

Please see prior post. I do believe that the evidence points to intelligent design. Within the context of 1st cause for life the options appear to be acceptance of random chance and the whole probability issue or design, now I do not think that I can prove the truthfulness of intelligent design but the truthfulness of not intelligent design can not be proven either.

""what other area would you accept such a huge immprobability as more probable than a seemingly much more simple and straight forward solution?"
Do you really think that the HUGE assumption of a super being is a straight forward solution?

I simply think that it is more likely. Mathematics proves the impossibility of a real infinite, and infinite regression does not seem possible on the surface. However a creative intelligent being existing outside of our perception of space/time creating space/time seems more probable to me, again I do not assume to be able to prove the truthfulness of this, but as I stated before the Kalam argument is a logiacally valid argument and if the universe has a begining then the kalam argument is very close to being proven true. I defer to Occam and perhaps yourself in the area of pure physics and astronomic physics, but the logic of a begining has not been overcome, even by Hawkings, as I understand his idea of a universe generating mechanism and a circular (or oval) flow of space/time he does not overcome the neccessity of a start point for the mechanism itself (great apologies to the scientist among us).

And nobody hits the lottery unless god whants them too!

I don't understand the context, is this a question/statement about predestination or some such matter?

Furthermore, TRUTH is non-sequitor. Obsevation is the first step to understanding."

Agreed.

AS for my philosophy- it's simple: what IS, IS.
And all the silly assumptions in the world can't change that.
And for the record, I have NEVER, not once, said there was no god.
But I have no evidence for such- and nethier do you, or anyone else.

The evidence is all around us, you draw conclusions and I draw conclusions about what the evidence points to. I do not accept that the evidence points to the evidence. Even the great skeptic Hume said (I don't have the quote handy) he would not believe something so absurd as that anything that exists did not have a cause. I do not think it is logical for you to want it both ways, God and not God, you obviously have a belief.

Let me take a second to say hi to everyone and thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I am new to this site, I am trying to not be offensive and to be respectful of everyones beliefs exactly because I know that the truthfulness of beliefs is very hard to prove, even to ourselves.

 

StonerBill,

I am not sure that I understand the entire philosophy of the matrix, but I would agree that
1- we can not fully trust our senses and our perceptions to provide completely accurate and truthful data to our conscious.
2- our understanding of reality is greatly distorted by our materialistic culture and the all out attempt to create consumers.
3- the pythagoreans stopped studying math when they discovered irrational numbers, implying that our existence is irrational, it scared them terribly.
4- there is a great deal of interesting writing being done in the field of philosophy of AI, will intelligent computers have a right to not be turned off, etc.

 

Hello!

Welcome!

Don't put too much stock in those who think you are being offensive. Long as you know you're not, that's all that really matters. Just let it serve as education. I just sit by and read this thread with interest ... mostly as a form of humor at how some will attempt to impose their beliefs (or views) and get upset when others don't agree.

Your input is greatly welcome.

Darrell

 

Quotient,

For you, It all comes down to your faith.

Nothing points to an intelligent designer because none is in evidence. Your belief that it must be so is not evidence.

Your belief that the existence of a super-creature is a simpler explanation than a low probability event occuring is baffling- as well as both unreasonable and illogical.

And again- you draw cuclusion. I merely state observations.