# How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?



Dang you. Quit making so much sense. You're gonna confuse the science community.  

The Universe SCREAMS design.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> ...



I agree.

It is meaningless to talk about natural laws if there is no design to them or their objects.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?



I find an interesting but disturbing parallel
in how some people cannot imagine not believing in God
and others cannot imagine not believing in Government.

on another forum, two people denied there were any "natural laws" self-existent
but "all laws were created by humans" so I brought up the parallel with laws of
science and how we didn't invent those when we developed language for expressing them.

With God and with Govt, I find as many people "assume this authority is a GIVEN"
and cannot imagine any views outside or against their own,
but assume those "aren't valid beliefs" and something else is wrong with that person!

I think people's brains are wired differently.

I used to think that by offering the same information, and correcting missing information,
this would resolve any contradictions and conflicts, and then things could change and people could reach agreement that we mean the same things.
Then I thought by "forgiving" the differences the EMOTIONS could be set aside, and then things could be reconciled even where people don't won't or can't change their views. 

Now I've come to the conclusion some people's psychological perception
is just not designed to understand or see things outside the way they are designed.
It's not a mental illness or error in perception, but some minds just can't
register some things because they are not designed to.
So it's not a matter of misinformation or missing information,
and not just about forgiving conflicts to stop carrying emotions or projecting biases.

But actually having such different perceptions they cannot perceive of the others;
and no manner of logical or emotional change is going to affect that. it just isn't there.

the issue of religion is one thing, because generally people agree to respect
different religions except when this gets into politics where people will fight and push.

but the issue of "political beliefs" is where I find the MOST disturbing conflicts.
If people "cannot help" but be prolife or prochoice, or for or against
right to health care through govt, how are we supposed to make policies
based on one set of views and excluding the other? the issue of gay marriage
brought up religious beliefs that people "assumed was political bigotry" and
"could not understand it any other way" because of how their minds work.
How pointless is it to keep projecting blame for the differences back and forth
if neither side can help how they perceive the issue itself, OR the other perspective?

What will it take for BOTH sides of these issues to realize the other
cannot help but see it that way? it is not just "political agenda," which implies choice.

How would public policy change regarding political beliefs and biases, if people came to 
an understanding on how to treat, respect and protect these equally?

Would we stop the political bullying and paying to override the other's votes and voice?

Sorry if I went off on politics, but in general I have run into a VERY similar situation
with people believing in Government but NOT SEEING there are "natural laws" in existence that give authority to people without having to rely on Govt or Party. So people who don't see that, only see going through their Party to have any say in this "man made Govt."

I thought this could change if conflicts were resolved, and if people were empowered with education, experience and training in self-government.

Instead I found that maybe such people are designed to respond to party leaders
and structure and have NO SENSE at all, no perception or connection to government authority directly by natural laws and conscience. They just don't see or feel it that way.
Very disturbing. Still not over this yet. That political beliefs are that embedded, where people could not choose to change even if they wanted to. We are programmed differently.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes.  Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.  

The question then becomes:  If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?


----------



## Pennywise (Mar 21, 2014)

What a great impetus for discussion. Think about Math. Is it an invented discipline or is it a Universal Truth?

Is there a speed at which sound travels? What is speed? Can it be measured by a truth? Or is it measured arbitrarily?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer.  Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they?  And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 21, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer.  Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they?  And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.



Yes and no. 

I've run into people with a wide range of beliefs, even within atheism or nontheism.
Some can understand and work with the concept of "intelligent design"
but just can't wrap their brains around a SOURCE or CREATOR, personified or not.

People who see the whole world as a living thing or sufficient system in itself
might see it as self-existent, with no beginning and no end, and "just is"
and does not need a beginning or source. the whole itself is what it is.

Regardless which way they see it, I approach people open ended, either way:
1. if they see things as coming from a source, so that all things can be
seen as coming from this source and diversifying from there
2. if they see things "as a whole" and not connected to any one source,
much less as a personified figure

the same laws should still operate and apply, either way.
so the discussion is about "how do the laws and process work"
within the world as we see it, regardless of the source if there is one.

What I find matters most is the degree we are able to FORGIVE differences
in perception, especially where we are not going to change them and have
to work around these differences or conflicts the best we can.

If two people are not equally forgiving, they can be two Christians or both
Theists and not be able to work out an agreement on what is true about something.
The denomination or label is not so important as the ability to forgive in order to work out issues.

And as long as people choose to be forgiving, they can have views as radically opposed
as a gay atheist and a Christian who believes in healing homosexuality as not being natural,
and still work things out where they agree. (Believe it or not, I have two friends who are THAT different and dedicated to work on criminal justice
reform and outreach, because they know the other person does work in the community they can't do.
they both forgive their differences, or else they wouldn't get anywhere on the purpose they share in common.)

If we can't forgive but fear and attack differences, that is the biggest obstacle I have found.
It wasn't coming from the different belief systems per se, but whether we rejected or blamed each other or not that made the difference in resolving conflicts.

If any views are going to change, it would be in that context anyway, because most changes occur mutually, as a give and take, where both sides are equally willing to stretch to understand where the other is coming from. Most of the changes I have seen are changes in "perception of the other person's view" and very rarely in converting anyone. 

Most people I know stick to their "native" language or ways, and expand or "add" to their knowledge and understanding from sharing with other people of different perspectives.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone in their right mind will look at something designed and know that there is a designer.  Certainly nobody could conclude that a Corvette (complete with engine, transmission, cooling system, etc.) fell into place by mistake -- would they?  And yet the human cell and functioning eyeball is more complex than a Corvette.
> ...



I think the biggest road block is folks' inability to believe that there is a power greater than themselves and more intelligent than their finite minds and limited intelligence.  Perhaps your earlier quote is right: not everyone is wired or "designed" to grasp what others have no problem grasping.  In similar fashion, some folks can walk across a canyon on a high wire with ease while most others wouldn't even attempt it.  They're not "wired" to overcome that sort of fear or they were gifted with that sort of balance and/or concentration level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes.  Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.
> 
> The question then becomes:  If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?



Irreducible complexity. Utter bullshit. You can find every stage in the developement of the eye in living creatures today. In fact, Darwin did a fine analysis of this. You dummys should at least do minimal research before making asses of yourselves.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2014)

File:Stages in the evolution of the eye.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2014)

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike. 

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ. 

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.
> 
> I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.
> 
> Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.



So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes.  Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.
> ...



Remove your iris and "see" how far you get.  Not very far, I'm afraid.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes.  Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.
> ...



Have you ever read "Darwin's Black Box" by the NON-RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST, Michael Behe?  Very well written and documented. You can't discount it unless and until you've read it.  Plenty of "research" right there.

Oh ... and "dummys" is spelled dummies (and I'm the dummy?).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2014)

I understand clearly what you are trying to say, but philosophy does not cover the gap of design and designer.

I believe that, yes, there is a Designer, but I can't prove it with the evidence we have.

Thus I have faith not knowledge.  Neither do you.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 22, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> The irreducible complexity of the eye and the cell speak volumes. Each component of both would have to have "evolved" simultaneous to all the other parts in order for each to function. But no organism could have seen anything without a totally functioning eye.
> 
> The question then becomes: If an organism was able to live, function, and thrive without sight then why was there a need to "evolve" an eye in the first place?



Nonsense.  There are hundreds of different types of sensory apparatus that we call eyes, none exactly alike, all performing their function according to the needs of the species in which they are found.  And some animals do perfectly well without them.  Blind cave fish used to have eyes (indicating that they once lived above ground in bodies of water exposed to sunlight), but have lost the ability to see since they now live in a world of 24-hour total darkness.

 The ability to see confers an evolutionary advantage to organisms that have vision because it is an efficient means of detecting predators and/or prey.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 22, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.
> ...



The Catholic Church's refusal to allow contraception has resulted in hundreds of thousands of STD deaths in Africa alone, particularly from AIDS. Worldwide, it could well be in the millions.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 22, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Trust me.  Michael Behe is not respected in the scientific community.  His entire critique within that book has long been refuted not only by other scientists (and even scientists within his own department), but was refuted in Federal court (see the Dover decision).


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.
> ...



Good question................when DID the last Pope call for the killing of anyone?

I present to you the Inquisition, or if you prefer, the Crusades.

Next?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 22, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?



Important to remember that life in the universe exists simply because the way this 'verse works by way of the sciences allows it. If the sciences worked slightly different we probably wouldn't exist. So our existence isn't an indication of conscious will so much as simply the result of favorable conditions. Other 'verses may well be lifeless since their physics will function slightly differently, but that some verses have life, and others don't doesn't mean anything beyond if physical laws allow life, life will exist, if it doesn't it wont.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 22, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?



What you are saying here is that if there is a particular way things work, if there is any sort of order, that is inherently by design.

I see no reason to reach such a conclusion.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 23, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Lol, that's pretty fucking thin.

These STDers are catholic enough to not use a condom, but not catholic enough t o keep their fucking pants zipped up?

That's lame even for you, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 23, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> ...



But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 23, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> ...



Lets look at this from three perspectives; 1) why this sort of extreme 'luckiness', 2) why does non life-giving phenomena require observation? 3) does the lucky hand really answer the question of plausibility?

1) There is no reason that life should have to depend on the fine tuning that we have. There are literally hundreds of features to our universe, solar system and chemical behavior that if any *one* of them are significantly different life on Earth is GONE. 

Why not a far more adapted universe where all this fine tuning is not necessary then? If we are the lucky living why do we have to be so lucky? If there are several hundred easier ways for life to be in a universe, why aren't we more likely talking about it from one of them?

2) QM is full of phenomena that requires an observer to happen. Why? Not only does it seem plain the Universe is fine tuned for us but it needs us too. More just lucky bullshit to pile on top of our heaping steaming pile of lucky bullshit?

Puhleeze.

3) Suppose we sit down at a black jack table and on the first hand the dealer deals himself a black jack. Then the next hand the same thing happens, then again, and again.

How many hands would you sit through watching this guy take your money before you reach the obvious conclusion; the dealer is cheating? How many times till you are so certain you just get up and look for a fair table?

I would leave after the fourth or fifth one, but I am a bit of a skeptic.

With the fine tuning we see, we have the equivalent of a black jack dealer that deals himself hundreds of black jack hands in a row.  But you would think that still plausible enough that you would continue to sit and play at that cheating bastards table?

I cant believe that you would be either that gullible or foolish.

Same goes for the fine tuning of our universe. The deck is stacked for life and that is plain enough for anyone with common sense that doesn't have an ideological axe to grind.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 23, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Wow, gotta go back for a thousand years to find a case?

lol, and compare that to the record of secular governments and Christianity looks pretty damned good.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Except that your circular logic prevents such a thing, as you simply assume that any system of rules is inherently designed.  So, if I point out certain physical laws of the universe, you say it must have been designed.  You don't give any basis upon which to draw that conclusion, you simply assert it is true and go from there.  

Let me put it another way.  The only designed systems of law that can be proven to exist are human created.  Can you show me a non-human system of laws that you can prove to be designed, or are you anthropomorphizing reality?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



People don't make up the laws of nature.  They only discover them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Now how does that happen? No laws exist without an author, so how did the conceptualizations come to exist?

And what I am saying is that when we describe the behavior of nature in specific concepts with words, we are actually putting our own understanding of these behaviors into concepts. We never perfectly understand them, so we are not describing true behavior of the universe but only our understanding of it. And yes, WE make that up.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
 Absolutely, they do.  The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.


----------



## editec (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?




Terrific example of  _non sequitur_ thinking, Jim

The ripples left on the beach sand after every tide are design(ie) as hell and well ordered but there is no sentient being making them happen.

I say this to you as one fellow believer to the other.

There is no logical argument to faith.

Your faith does not need to be defended in science or logic.

Trying to do so is actually a kind of affront to faith itself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well, I agree, but said conceptualizations are by definition the product of a sentient mind.

So what mind made up the laws of the universe?



orogenicman said:


> The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.



Non sequitur.

Sure it is.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

editec said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> ...



To compare a conceptual system of laws to ripples in the sand is ridiculous.

We are talking about CONCEPTS that are logically linked to each other, not some periodic wave effects not are not concepts.

Concepts necessitate a conceiving mind by definition.




editec said:


> I say this to you as one fellow believer to the other.
> 
> There is no logical argument to faith.
> 
> ...




And yes, millions of theologians and philosophers present and past would state that you are wrong.

Faith makes evidence unnecessary but is not opposed to evidence found.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The discoveries of the laws of physics are the product of human endeavor.  The laws themselves are a product of the big bang, working independently of the human imagination.

 And Jimbo.  The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The laws of physics are not the same as the laws humanity writes to govern itself.  

Unless you want to get into a Schrodinger's cat type of discussion, our descriptions of our observations as laws does not effect the existence of what we observed.  So the things we observe exist independent of us, and humanity creates the conceptualizations of those things.

So we come up not with the laws of the universe, but with our descriptions of those laws.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



How does the Big Bang produce concepts that exist independent of human observation?  You keep ducking that question.



orogenicman said:


> And Jimbo.  The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.



It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Never said that they were the same, but they do have some close similarities or we would call them something other than 'laws'. These concepts we use to describe the behavior of the universe and call 'laws' exist independently of human observation, i.e. the law of gravity existed prior to being discovered by anyone. This is order, and design by definition.



Montrovant said:


> Unless you want to get into a Schrodinger's cat type of discussion, our descriptions of *our observations as laws does not effect the existence of what we observed*.  So the things we observe exist independent of us, and humanity creates the conceptualizations of those things.
> 
> So we come up not with the laws of the universe, but with our descriptions of those laws.



No, but our observations of sub atomic process does change the processes observed many times, and then there is the whole light wave slit experiment paradox where light shows different behavior  if observed than if not observed by the human eye..


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
 Well, for one thing, human beings didn't exist during the big bang, or even for billions of years afterwards.  So to suggest that we had a hand in creating the laws of physics is absurd.  We didn't create them.  We discovered them.



orogenicman said:


> And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.



It most certainly does derive from what we can observe.  The bulk of the  universe is utterly hostile to life, being composed of hard vacuum and deadly radiation.  The fact that it was here for about 8.5 billion years before we evolved in the African rift valley is also solid evidence that the universe is not here for us.  The fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is already extinct indicates that the universe is not finely tuned for us.  I could post a huge list of factoids explaining why it is not here for us, but I doubt if it will make any difference to you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I never said we created the laws of the universe. I am pointing out that these laws you think independent of human observation originated at the Big Bang and laws have law makers, concepts have conceivers. Who conceived these laws?

Why should the universe be governed by principles that are capable of description in human concepts? And how can these laws NOT be design as all systems of laws are designed?



orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.
> ...



These are not problems for an eternal and omnipotent Creator for whom power and time are minute costs for Him no matter what scale.

For God to have made a universe a gazillion times bigger or smaller is no different to Him since his power is infinite. There is no more a reason for Him to make the universe any bigger than to make it smaller for human kind.

As long as there might be a reason for Him to do this your case evaporates, and just one  suck reason might be His desire to demonstrate to us His power and glory.

Another could be that the way He wanted to do it, the cake wasn't ready for 8.5 billion years and that's no big deal to Him.

In any case, you make an assertion that SCIENCE does not make, dude, non sequitur.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> I think the biggest road block is folks' inability to believe that there is a power greater than themselves and more intelligent than their finite minds and limited intelligence.  Perhaps your earlier quote is right: not everyone is wired or "designed" to grasp what others have no problem grasping.  In similar fashion, some folks can walk across a canyon on a high wire with ease while most others wouldn't even attempt it.  They're not "wired" to overcome that sort of fear or they were gifted with that sort of balance and/or concentration level.



Perhaps, or it could be the other way.
That the wonders of the world and life seem so naturally given, self-existent by science,
not all people see any need to seek some personified God to attribute this to.

The most wonderful statement I ever heard on this vein
was by the humorist Tim Minchin in "Storm" poetically ranting against the anti-establishment ramblings
of a new age guest at dinner he feels is missing the whole point of science and life:

Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie with subtitles | Amara

He asks "isn't it ENOUGH" -- Just this beautiful complex world?
Instead of being afraid there is a God, he asks are you "so afraid" that there may BE knowledge and explanations out there, waiting to
be discovered, that we COULD understand the workings of the world, instead of chalking it up to only an omnipotent God to know these things.

I like his presentation because he avoids the "Bill Maher" approach of "selectively" attacking religions and theists, and trying to defend atheism based on discrediting flaws in them, which
still does not prove or disprove anything about the existence or nature of God.

Personally, I find the "religious" issues are what atheists, nontheists and agnostics
have problems with. The same rules of science and life work regardless; it's these
religions that get in the way of discussing and agreeing on universal concepts and principles.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?



The law of biogenesis comes to mind


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 24, 2014)

Hi Orogenic:

1. 





orogenicman said:


> Well, for one thing, human beings didn't exist during the big bang, or even for billions of years afterwards.  So to suggest that we had a hand in creating the laws of physics is absurd.  We didn't create them.  We discovered them.



1. Yes, I see we are all in agreement that these laws were already in existence and operation, and humans merely developed our minds and language to communicate
and express these relationships in tangible form.

2. 





orogenicman said:


> And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.



It most certainly does derive from what we can observe.  The bulk of the  universe is utterly hostile to life, being composed of hard vacuum and deadly radiation.  The fact that it was here for about 8.5 billion years before we evolved in the African rift valley is also solid evidence that the universe is not here for us.  The fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is already extinct indicates that the universe is not finely tuned for us.  I could post a huge list of factoids explaining why it is not here for us, but I doubt if it will make any difference to you.[/QUOTE]

2. on that note, the world already existed before we entered the picture, and we entered the picture BEFORE we developed the ability to understand our existence and relationship with the rest of the world, including each other within humanity which we STILL have not totally mastered yet!

This does NOT mean that this MASTERY and UNDERSTANDING is NOT a key purpose in our existence as self-aware human beings. Just because we came into existence before fully mastering our understanding. Same with the world; just because it existed and went through billions of years of development doesn't mean the later stages of development are not the critical ones the whole process is working to fulfill.

The world is certainly not for us to take for granted, to trash the planet and pollute the air, thinking all the animals, fauna, and resources are solely for humans to do as we wish at our convenience.

However, the RELATIONSHIP between us and the world, UNDERSTANDING the laws of life, balance and harmony, this well may be what drives us as a key part of our purpose here.

As a science minded person, you may focus more on the laws of science to express the "relationships " in the world. for those who look at life using scriptural laws for wisdom and principles in life, these people may focus on the "relationship between man and God."

In either case, we are looking at the RELATIONSHIP between the individual and "collective" level.  We may use different "laws" to describe this relationship, how it works, and how it stays in harmony, or the laws of cause and effect when balance is disrupted and recovered.

But regardless which system of laws or language we use,
we as humans are still seeking to define and agree on the principles
behind these RELATIONSHIPS.  That seems to be a common purpose in people,
regardless if we follow a secular approach using science or civil laws and government, or a spiritual approach using religion and church structure. Ideally, shouldn't we agree how to use each system to provide benefits to humanity, so we make the most of all knowledge?

Why do these need to be in conflict? Why can't we focus where our principles agree?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> 
> And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.
> 
> So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?


But doesn't the Supernatural God violate all the natural laws?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.
> ...


I don't know what universe you are looking at, but as you look farther and farther into space you see explosions and collisions galore. If that kind of chaos screams "design" to you, I would never want you to design my house!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> *There is no reason that life should have to depend on the fine tuning that we have.* There are literally hundreds of features to our universe, solar system and chemical behavior that* if any *one* of them are significantly different life on Earth is GONE. *


First of all, there is no "fine tuning." The Earth was very different in the past and will be very different in the future. As the Earth changes, life adapts to the changes. For example there are sulfur bacteria that need no sunlight and consume sulfur as food. Life can and does exist under the most extreme conditions on Earth. Life existed in various forms before mankind and will continue to exist after mankind is gone. Change the present conditions on Earth and life will not be "gone," it simply be different.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Orogenic:
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...





			
				emilynghiem said:
			
		

> 2. on that note, the world already existed before we entered the picture, and we entered the picture BEFORE we developed the ability to understand our existence and relationship with the rest of the world, including each other within humanity which we STILL have not totally mastered yet!
> 
> This does NOT mean that this MASTERY and UNDERSTANDING is NOT a key purpose in our existence as self-aware human beings. Just because we came into existence before fully mastering our understanding. Same with the world; just because it existed and went through billions of years of development doesn't mean the later stages of development are not the critical ones the whole process is working to fulfill.
> 
> ...



You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself. It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

Jimbo said:
			
		

> _There is no reason that life should have to depend on the fine tuning that we have. There are literally hundreds of features to our universe, solar system and chemical behavior that if any *one* of them are significantly different life on Earth is GONE. _



Actually, there is no way we can know that because, although multiverses have been postulated, the universe in which we live is the only one we know of for certain, the only one on our graph.  And as we all know, you need more than one data point to make a graph.  Secondly, as I keep having to point out in these discussion, the bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to life - much of it being composed of hard vacuum and penetrating radiation.  And if you want to talk about stupid designs, I can talk about those for days.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I don't know why you think the label used (in this case laws) is how the nature of a thing should be determined.  

Would you be more comfortable if we instead used the word principles?  How about truisms?  If using the word laws is causing you issues, will a different word negate the argument?

That gravity existed prior to humanity in no way requires design.

As to the last part, I brought up Schrodinger's cat for a reason.....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > I think the biggest road block is folks' inability to believe that there is a power greater than themselves and more intelligent than their finite minds and limited intelligence.  Perhaps your earlier quote is right: not everyone is wired or "designed" to grasp what others have no problem grasping.  In similar fashion, some folks can walk across a canyon on a high wire with ease while most others wouldn't even attempt it.  They're not "wired" to overcome that sort of fear or they were gifted with that sort of balance and/or concentration level.
> ...



As well they should.

Scientists are so often like the teen ager who just cant wait to get the car keys while religion says, 'Not so fast, dude, there is more to this than your one drum band.'

If we left the science community to its own devices we would have human cloning research causing immeasurable damage to real people. We would have lab created human chimeras for research purposes, never mind the risk of cross over diseases and just the void of morality it would entail.

We need philosophers and theologians to ask the pertinent moral questions just as we need scientists to ask the naturalistic questions. And when they clash (in the main stream) it is usually the scientist at fault.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > *There is no reason that life should have to depend on the fine tuning that we have.* There are literally hundreds of features to our universe, solar system and chemical behavior that* if any *one* of them are significantly different life on Earth is GONE. *
> ...



This isn't just about mankind, it is about ALL life would not exist without these fine tuned features to the universe. There wouldn't be any 'living through it'.

The way water bonds is an excellent example, the only dipole molecule to make the angle it does and so it expands on freezing instead of contracting further. This allows our planet a lot of range in temperature and to not eventually become a huge ice ball as the ice floats on the surface of our oceans, letting the sun eventually melt it.

etc, there are hundreds of little things like that, and I doubt you are familiar with many if any of them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Orogenic:
> ...



And abortion pushing libtards appreciate it even less, apparently.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We agree that the bulk of the universe is hostile to life. So what? Many items designed for one function have the bulk of their volumes not suitable for that function. Take an automobile sedan. The majority of its volume is not suitable for human driving, and yet, it is still designed for humans to drive them.

So the majority of the universe is not friendly to human life.
Woop-tee-doo.

I would expect that to a degree.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again you miss or just avoid the point. The word law is not the critical item here, though it is a give away. The critical point is that these things we call laws are cognitive concepts that reflect the universe's behavior quite well, and in a way that accommodates the making of concepts to model them. These concepts that in science is thought of as undiscovered law is in a designed and highly organized system.

To talk about it, expand it and test that system while refusing to recognize its inherent design is simply ludicrous.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Jimbo said:
> ...



 You're really going to try to make an irreducible complexity argument here?

To a degree?  What degree would you expect the universe to be inhospitable to life if it was designed FOR life?  Is an entertainment complex placed adjacent to a sewage system a good design, or a stupid design?

 Woop-tee-doo?  The fact that the universe is utterly unfriendly to life is a death nell to the anthropic principle, which is what your argument supports.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, I am not. Do you see me even mentioning irreducible complexity?



orogenicman said:


> To a degree?  What degree would you expect the universe to be inhospitable to life if it was designed FOR life?



I would expect the majority of any system to support the primary function and not perform that function itself, much like most of the mass to a blender is not doing any blending, and the majority of the mass and volume of your sedan is not transporting people. None of this negates the fact that blenders are designed for blending and sedans designed to transport people.



orogenicman said:


> Is an entertainment complex placed adjacent to a sewage system a good design, or a stupid design?


 
The location of the reproductive system and the urinary and excrement systems of the body in the bottom most area of the torso is good design. These systems use gravity to assist their function to a degree, and their location keeps their proclivity to infection away from the critical upper body areas.  Great design.




orogenicman said:


> Woop-tee-doo?  The fact that the universe is utterly unfriendly to life is a death nell to the anthropic principle, which is what your argument supports.



It is not a fact that the universe is UTTERLY unfriendly to life or life would not be here.

The vast majority of the universe would appear to be hostile to life, but then again, we don't really know that for a fact either. It could be that most heavenly bodies have some form of life but we have not come to understand that yet.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I'm not missing the point.  I think you may be, though.

While the universe may well have been designed, the fact that it functions in the way it does is not objective evidence of design.

Your argument is that only complete and utter chaos can exist without some form of intelligent design; that any kind of order or regularity must be the result of conscious decision.  That is not an objective, provable truth.  

Whether one believes in a designer for the universe or not, the fact of the universe's existence does not provide any answers to that argument one way or another.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And what, exactly do you suppose the primary function of the universe is?



orogenicman said:


> Is an entertainment complex placed adjacent to a sewage system a good design, or a stupid design?





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> The location of the reproductive system and the urinary and excrement systems of the body in the bottom most area of the torso is good design. These systems use gravity to assist their function to a degree, and their location keeps their proclivity to infection away from the critical upper body areas. Great design.



Really? And you don't see a disease issue with these functions being adjacent to one another (not to mention the ick factor)?  No engineer would design it that way.  If you don't see a problem here, you are probably the only one who doesn't.



orogenicman said:


> Woop-tee-doo? The fact that the universe is utterly unfriendly to life is a death nell to the anthropic principle, which is what your argument supports.



It is not a fact that the universe is UTTERLY unfriendly to life or life would not be here.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> The vast majority of the universe would appear to be hostile to life, but then again, we don't really know that for a fact either. It could be that most heavenly bodies have some form of life but we have not come to understand that yet.



Yes we do know. The vast majority of the universe is composed of hard vacuum and deadly radiation, both of which are utterly destructive to life. And Jimbo, most of the mass of the universe is found inside stars. You aren't trying to argue that there is life inside such raging infernos, are you? Because if you are, that is, at best, a very weak argument, and unsupported one at that.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 24, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Again, there is more life than human life that can survive at extremes human life can't. There are thousands of examples, and I doubt you are familiar with many if any of them.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The vast majority of the universe is composed of hard vacuum and *deadly radiation*, both of which are *utterly destructive to life*.


Not all life!

Ultraviolet lighting is integral for the growth and maintenance of many reptile and amphibian species. In fact, in many home terrariums, many diseases seen by veterinarians are attributed to ultraviolet lighting deficiencies!


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of the universe is composed of hard vacuum and *deadly radiation*, both of which are *utterly destructive to life*.
> ...



In the vast bulk of the universe, it is.  There may be life elsewhere in the universe (I'd be shocked if there weren't).  But the life we know of doesn't even comprise a speck of sand in all the sands on the Earth compared to the vastness of the universe where life cannot exist.

 UV-B radiation is dangerous to all life on Earth, even reptiles and amphibians.  But the really bad stuff, cosmic rays and gamma rays permeates the vacuum of space, and is deadly.  In all the universe, life is most likely the exception, NOT the rule.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



That was a poor response, even coming from you.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Not so.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snpyCKYvvg8#t=402[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 25, 2014)

Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the reason that the Universe, with it's  vacuum and deadly radiation is there for a purpose of keeping things safe?

I mean................you don't put your most deadly poison (or as someone further up the thread stated sewer pipes) next to your most viable form of life (or as someone further up the thread stated place to eat).

You'd really like to have a barrier between them, so that there is no cross contamination.  

Maybe the reason there is a vacuum and deadly radiation is so that there can't be any cross contamination between life forms.

I mean....................if we bring our war like society to other planets, who do you think will survive?

Especially if they're peaceful.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the reason that the Universe, with it's vacuum and deadly radiation is there for a purpose of keeping things safe?
> 
> I mean................you don't put your most deadly poison (or as someone further up the thread stated sewer pipes) next to your most viable form of life (or as someone further up the thread stated place to eat).
> 
> ...



That assumes that radiation is a result of intent by some purposeful being, and not a result of random isotopic decay.  For the record, my money is on the latter.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Lol, now you gotta put words in my mouth and beat a straw man?

No, my argument is not that the universe has order therefore it is designed and that you respond to that claim I never made is why I say you are not comprehending my argument.

What I am saying is that science is based on the assumption that the behavior of the universe can be accurately described using human cognitive terms we call laws. And the fact that it has so far been proven to be so accurately described proves by definition that it is designed as all cognitive thought is the product of a mind, and these laws exist independent of human observation.

If the universe is describable with a system of cognitive rules, then the universe is designed as all systems of such COGNITIVE rules are the product of design.

lol, now go ahead and respond real quick without reading my post so I can point out how you got it wrong again!

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



But nonetheless totally true. Libtards are not fit to survive as they demographically destroy themselves. I don't know a single libtard couple with more than one kid and most have no kids at all. There have been studies showing that libtards have well below the replacement level of offspring.

There was nothing poor about my response other than you have a natural discomfort with Truth, apparently.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the reason that the Universe, with it's vacuum and deadly radiation is there for a purpose of keeping things safe?
> ...



And you would lose. You cannot prove that there is no such being and a great deal of evidence that you refuse to see suggests that there is said Creator.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Would I?  Do you have any evidence that hard radiation is a result of anything other than isotopic decay?  How does an interventionist deity not violate the laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't need it as Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.



orogenicman said:


> How does an interventionist deity not violate the laws of thermodynamics?



Lol, now you are starting to sound like a YECer.


----------



## RosieS (Mar 25, 2014)

http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html

JimBowie1958 does not know better than Stephen Hawking.

Besides, Intelligent Design was found in the Dover decision to be merely a fraudulent attempt to insert creationism into public school science classes.

Zero for two there, Jimbo.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



 Any intervention would violate the laws of thermodynamics.  If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

 Also, you didn't answer my question about isotopic decay.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

RosieS said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html
> 
> JimBowie1958 does not know better than Stephen Hawking.
> 
> ...



Lol, appeals top authority to stifle discussion, typical fascist there for ya.

BTW, Hawking is not an authority on the philosophy of science, he is an astrophysicist.

And the courts have gotten plenty of things wrong, like the Dred Scott decision.

So those aren't even authorities, dear.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I did. Providential intervention would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

That you didn't understand the response shows your ignorance regarding the concept of providence.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html
> ...



Denial is not a river in Egypt, Jimbo.  Real men admit their mistakes.  So why don't you?


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself. It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.



Dear Orogenic:
If the evolution and reproduction of life was the predominant driving factor,
do you count the creative and intellectual aspirations of humans
as part of that process?

the drive to create art, and music, to enjoy nature.
to understand the workings of science, of human psychology.

Is this all survival driven, and none of it is for art sake, for aesthetic value "in itself"?

That's fine, if you believe it is all biological.
I think we can make all the relevant arguments for effective solutions or against
destructive or conflicting methods, by basing it on "biological necessity for survival"

I am just curious if you see "aesthetics" and "human happiness" as
included in biological survival and reproduction, or if you are okay with people
reading more into that than just "prolonging the quality of life for better health."

Either way, I'm okay with it, and think this is workable with,
where believing in some divine reason for art is NOT NECESSARY
to value the importance of it when dealing civilly with people in society.

Either way, because people DO have beliefs and values based on these principles,
then building a consensus on how to operate effectively in society
"to prolong life and reduce waste of resources on preventable death, damage or destruction" would still require working with people of these beliefs.
So it is still going to effect the equation, whether we share those beliefs or not.

Are you sure you see nothing going on except for the purpose of survival?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Go back to your OP.  You said, "all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.".  The only way for no system of laws to exist is for there to be total chaos; therefore, since you say all systems of laws are designed, only with chaos is there a lack of design.

And that sounds better than what you're saying now, which seems to be that because humanity has been able to describe the observable physical universe, it must have been designed.  The cognitive thought that you are harping on about is that of humans.  We are the ones trying to understand and describe the universe as we see it.  That we do so is evidence only of our ability to do so, not of a design to that universe.  

The universe appears to work in certain ways.  We, as a species, have used the term laws to describe certain aspects of it.  That some things seem to work the same way all the time is not indicative of design.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself. It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.
> ...


 
 Of course.  How else can we survive long enough to raise our children in this brutal world?



			
				emilyngheim said:
			
		

> the drive to create art, and music, to enjoy nature.
> to understand the workings of science, of human psychology.
> 
> Is this all survival driven, and none of it is for art sake, for aesthetic value "in itself"?


 
 Like I said, the primary purpose is survival of the species through procreation.  The rest is gravy.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.


That's rich!
Supernatural violation of natural law does not violate natural law.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Providential intervention would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> That you didn't understand the response shows your ignorance regarding the concept of providence.


It is even more stupid the more you repeat it!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And you can prove that there is no possibility for apparent order without design?

Your assertion that we either have a universe governed by concepts that can be put into human cognitive form or we have CHAOS is a false dichotomy unless you can provide some proof for that assertion.



Montrovant said:


> And that sounds better than what you're saying now, which seems to be that because humanity has been able to describe the observable physical universe, it must have been designed.  The cognitive thought that you are harping on about is that of humans.  We are the ones trying to understand and describe the universe as we see it.  That we do so is evidence only of our ability to do so, not of a design to that universe.



Lol, even Oro agreed that the cognitive 'laws' that science is discovering existed PRIOR to discovery by human beings. Yes, we are writing our understanding of how the universe in the form of cognitive rules, and that we can do so as completely and accurately as modern science is able to do this shows that the universe is guided by unwritten laws.

And for that you need a Law Giver, and you have obvious evidence of design.




Montrovant said:


> The universe appears to work in certain ways.  We, as a species, have used the term laws to describe certain aspects of it.  That some things seem to work the same way all the time is not indicative of design.



Not all cases of order are systematic, but so much of it is that it is no longer doubted that our universe is totally compatible human cognitive laws.

And said system of laws is the basic definition of what design is and does.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Providential intervention would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> ...



Ed, don't be such a buffoon.

Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

lol


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.
> ...



Supernatural intervention does not require miraculous intervention, ignoramus.

If you knew a damned thing about the religion you run your pie hole about you would realize what I said to be true.

Instead you just have to keep laughing like an ape and hurling your shit into the wind, only to get it blown back on you, dumbass.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Supernatural creation from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## RosieS (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



If you knew anything about science you would not be showing your ass so often.

All natural laws are mathematical.

Mathematics does not require some hidden, invisible "Mathematics Giver"

Math does not require a God overlay.

It is not God that is, was and always will be, it is the giver of the laws of this universe (and perhaps others): mathematics.

Being ignorant of the language of science makes you make up nonsense.

No God required. God did not invent mathematics and mathematics did not invent any God.

The Big Bang happened exponentially and geometrically, not religiously.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Your video is talking abut cosmic rays striking the Earth environment. That is a vastly different issue than the vastness of the outer space environment, which is what we were discussing.

Health threat from cosmic rays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Life on the Earth's surface is protected from galactic cosmic rays by a number of factors:
> 
> 
> The Earth's atmosphere is opaque to primary cosmic rays with energies below about 1 gigaelectron volt (GeV), so only secondary radiation can reach the surface. The secondary radiation is also attenuated by absorption in the atmosphere, as well as by radioactive decay in flight of some particles, such as muons. Particles entering from a direction close to the horizon are especially attenuated. The world's population receives an average of 0.4 millisieverts (mSv) of cosmic radiation annually (separate from other sources of radiation exposure like inhaled radon) due to atmospheric shielding. At 12 km altitude, above most of the atmosphere's protection, radiation as an annual rate rises to 20 mSv at the equator to 50120 mSv at the poles, varying between solar maximum and minimum conditions[7][8][9]
> ...


 Whereas:



> On 31 May 2013, NASA scientists reported that a possible manned mission to Mars[3] may involve a great radiation risk based on the amount of energetic particle radiation detected by the radiation assessment detector (RAD) on the Mars Science Laboratory while traveling from the Earth to Mars in 20112012.[15][16][17]


 
 Clearly the environment outside of Earth's protective shield is very hazardous.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the reason that the Universe, with it's vacuum and deadly radiation is there for a purpose of keeping things safe?
> 
> I mean................you don't put your most deadly poison (or as someone further up the thread stated sewer pipes) next to your most viable form of life (or as someone further up the thread stated place to eat).
> 
> ...



Or maybe the reason why there is vacuum in space is completely unrelated to the reason there is deadly radiation, and neither are there for our protection.  Outer space is a vacuum because gravity there is weak and so gases are rarified.  The deadly radiation exists because the universe is full of stars (fusing hydrogen into helium), neutron stars, magnetars, black holes, pulsars, etc., and because there are at least 10 supernovae every day somewhere in the universe.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Your bigoted ranting aside, are you suggesting some sort of "final solution" for us "libtards"? Dare I say it?












Hitler would be proud of you.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html
> ...



Slippery slope, pal.  Using your flawed logic, innocent people have been convicted of murder, therefore all who have been convicted of murder are innocent.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



My assertion is that a universe without any sort of laws or order controlling it is chaos.  Whether or not humanity can observe and understand any or all of those laws is irrelevant to that fact.

Unless you are claiming that humanity knows and understands all of the rules by which the universe runs, then we do not know if all of the laws governing the universe can be described in human cognitive form.  Put much more simply, we probably don't know everything yet.  We likely never will know everything.  So the fact that we think we know at least some of how the universe runs doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

Why does humanity's current level of understanding have to mean the universe was designed?  Is there some reason we could not understand a universe which occurred through natural means or that has always existed?  Is humanity only capable of understanding things which were designed, and what evidence do you have that is the case?

Once again you are hung up on labels.  Don't call them laws, call them principles.  Then there is no need for a law giver as you said.  That's a ridiculous claim.  The word law in regards to the physics of the universe does not mean what you seem to think it does.  It is not the same as a human law of governance.  Or, if it is, we have no objective evidence to show that is the case.

Your argument seems to boil down to pointing at the universe and saying, "See?  This exists, therefore it must have been designed!".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not if it is a providential event via the Big Bang, then no, it is not.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

RosieS said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What a bunch of blah, blah, blah. Have you ever heard of 'unwarranted assertion'? 

In logical terms they are rotting eggs and you just laid half a dozen of them, moron.

And even if you shift from using natural 'laws' to using natural 'mathematics' you  still have the same problem, Einstein. Mathematical equations are cognitive expressions and they are evidence of order and entire systems of mathematical expressions demonstrate design.

Good grief, you jump all in here and start barking orders like you are somebody.

Eat shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, yo uare more stupid than I thought.
Did I ever mention anyone doing anything to libtards other than yourselves?

If you are concerned about the demographic fate of your fellow libtards then maybe you should get off your ass and go talk to them, idiot.

But there is no group of people on this earth that has killed more of their own babies, run from more marriages and failed to prepare for their own future than USA libtards.

You are building your own damnation on this Earth; don't blame me for telling you ahead of time, chicken shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 25, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RosieS said:
> ...



I stated nothing of the sort, you stupid monkey. roflmao.

I said these two references are not authoritative, which is a far cry from saying I have claimed that 'some of group A are not B, therefore all A are not B'

Like I said before, you would do well to actually read the posts you respond to.

stupid ass.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Energy went bang in the Big Bang. Energy is not nothing! No God needed. No providential event needed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yeah, it just happened. What theologians in Christendom have been saying for two millennia just happened to have been true, and what atheists theorized (Steady State Theory) was wrong just so happens.

Yeah, right. The energy just came out of no where; that makes total sense.

You don't understand half the things I post to you, misread half of the rest and still sit there all so smug and certain that God had nothing to do with it because science cant prove He did.

Well science cannot prove He did not either.

Either we are just lucky as hell things all fell into place or God guided events.

Your choice, but you live with the choice in so many ways I doubt you ever considered.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


You are violating the First Law of Thermodynamics again as well as deliberately misrepresenting science. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change. Energy does not come or go from nowhere. Energy IS!


----------



## RosieS (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Mathematical equations are not cognitive expressions. Mathematics exist outside of, and independent of, human brains.

I bet you think white settlers 'discovered' America, too. Because no one could exist beyond white men knowing of them.

What a shithead you are proving yourself to be.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



And yet with the Big Bang massive amounts of energy and mass simply popped into being, from where or how we don't know.

But you are certain that whatever and however it came about it absolutely had nothing to do with God! lol

Whatever caused the massive energy explosion that created our universe, dude, it is not covered under the laws of thermodynamics WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. This by necessity has to involve the transfer of energy to what became our universe.

The laws of thermodynamics are not written to cover such events and so do not apply, I would think. For all energy exchanges and transformations within our universe, sure, but the people that wrote the laws of thermodynamics did not contemplate the transfer of energy from one universe to another.

So yes, we have a net gain in energy in our universe, but it left another or was generated in some other fashion.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

RosieS said:


> Mathematical equations are not cognitive expressions.



And you show what an ignorant wretch you are. Mathematical expressions are in fact cognitive expressions.





RosieS said:


> Mathematics exist outside of, and independent of, human brains.



Yes, they do.




RosieS said:


> I bet you think white settlers 'discovered' America, too. Because no one could exist beyond white men knowing of them.



What does that have to do with Mathematics?

Lol, you libtards have to bring your racism into every discussion, roflmao.



RosieS said:


> What a shithead you are proving yourself to be.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Rosie, you are a moron/

But please keep posting your bullshit; you are hilarious.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Repeating your lie does not make it true. Even assuming already existing energy was "transferred" from an unproven other universe does not mean that energy was created.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Lol, what is a lie, ed?



edthecynic said:


> Even assuming already existing energy was "transferred" from an unproven other universe does not mean that energy was created.



From the perspective of an observer in THIS universe it most certainly does mean that.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


A "transfer" of energy is not a creation of energy from any perspective. You can stomp your feet all you want, but the proven FLoT says energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, Ed, it would appear to be a creation of energy from someone in our universe. How would they see it coming in from another universe?

Oh, wait, you mean that since you have already determined that it came from somewhere, you rule out creation of energy in this unusual situation right from the start.

How open minded of you, libtard.



edthecynic said:


> You can stomp your feet all you want, but the proven FLoT says energy cannot be created nor destroyed.



Yes, in THIS universe.

Can you prove that applies to any and all universes?

No, you cannot, but you ASSume it because of your philosophical prejudices and not science.

Stupid ass hat, go borrow a brain or steal one, cause this topic is stretching your old worn out brain a bit too much, apparently.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



A transfer of energy from some other universe to our own would violate the laws of thermodynamics since our universe is a closed one.  If you want to make that argument you must first show that our universe is not closed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



1) I am arguing that in the first moments of our universe's creation it was not a closed universe. 

2) Whether you want to start with the Big Bang or the beginnings of the Cosmic Egg, at some point in time energy was put into our universe from somewhere outside of it.

3) I am not at all sure that we don't have inter-universe transfers of energy since the Big Bang. It apparently does not happen at a regular interval that we have discovered as of yet, but if there are other universes and if they can and sometimes do transfer energy between each other, why cant it happen on far smaller scales intermittently? Sort of micro-Big Bangs?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


YOU were the one who determined energy came from another universe, not me, I merely pointed out that even with YOUR assumption that does not prove energy was created, YOUR own word was "TRANSFERRED." 

Can you prove there are other universes? YOU ASSume it and then ASSume it proves energy can be created. I only pointed out the flaw in YOUR ASSumption even if true.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It could have come from another universe, but it might have simply appeared from nothing by a divine act of power. lol

My point is that even in naturalistic terms, from our perspective in this universe, a transfer of energy to our universe from outside it would APPEAR as a creation of energy, not a transfer.

It would really help you to respond if you would first READ the posts. But a rational discussion is not your goal here, quite plainly; you are being a troll.



edthecynic said:


> Can you prove there are other universes? YOU ASSume it and then ASSume it proves energy can be created. I only pointed out the flaw in YOUR ASSumption even if true.



lol, you don't keep up much, do you? While outside universes are not proven fact, there is evidence for them.

Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist



> In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be &#8220;bruises&#8221; that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.



Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Mail Online



> The first 'hard evidence' that other universes exist has been found by scientists.
> 
> Cosmologists studying a map of the universe from data gathered by the Planck spacecraft have concluded that it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.
> 
> ...




Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space.com



> The first direct evidence of cosmic inflation &#8212; a period of rapid expansion that occurred a fraction of a second after the Big Bang &#8212; also supports the idea that our universe is just one of many out there, some researchers say.
> 
> On Monday (March 17), scientists announced new findings that mark the first-ever direct evidence of primordial gravitational waves &#8212; ripples in space-time created just after the universe began. If the results are confirmed, they would provide smoking-gun evidence that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.




Lol, here is three different sources, maybe one of them will be OKed by your libtard thought managers and you can see the point....but probably not.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Okay, so present the evidence you have to support your hypothesis.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> 2) Whether you want to start with the Big Bang or the beginnings of the Cosmic Egg, at some point in time energy was put into our universe from somewhere outside of it.



What evidence supports this claim?  Do you realize that if our universe is not closed, that would mean that energy would be able to leave our universe as well as enter it, right?



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> 3)I am not at all sure that we don't have inter-universe transfers of energy since the Big Bang. It apparently does not happen at a regular interval that we have discovered as of yet, but if there are other universes and if they can and sometimes do transfer energy between each other, why cant it happen on far smaller scales intermittently? Sort of micro-Big Bangs?



It has not been discovered to occur at all, so why assume that it does?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



lol, OK; the Big Bang.



orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fallacy of infinite regression supports the claim that the current space-time flow we live in began at some point and this has been confirmed with the Big Bang theory being validated.




orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you would actually read what I post, you would see Id did not say I was assuming anything, but only that I am not sure this does not happen, which is far from an affirmative assumption.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

OP is actually a logical fallacy. Complexity does not imply design, and CERTAINLY doesn't PROVE design.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> OP is actually a logical fallacy. Complexity does not imply design, and CERTAINLY doesn't PROVE design.



What a straw man!

No one is asserting that, douche.

I am asserting that a system of concepts known as laws are in EVERY CASE designed.

We know that to be true.

The FACT that the universe can be described accurately with cognitive human expression is proof of design in and of itself.

No one is talking about mere complexity except dullards like you who cant read, ass hole.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
 You're going to have to present a better line of evidence than a five word sentence.  The Big Bang theory says that at t=0 the universe consisted of a point of infinite energy density.  It says nothing about that energy originating from elsewhere.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> The fallacy of infinite regression supports the claim that the current space-time flow we live in began at some point and this has been confirmed with the Big Bang theory being validated.


 
 How does that support your claim that the energy of the universe came from elsewhere?



orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> If you would actually read what I post, you would see Id did not say I was assuming anything, but only that I am not sure this does not happen, which is far from an affirmative assumption.



What line of evidence leads to your uncertainty?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > OP is actually a logical fallacy. Complexity does not imply design, and CERTAINLY doesn't PROVE design.
> ...



No, in science the LAWS are observed, not designed. We do not know how they came to be, and design is most certainly not the only option. It's a bad argument. A non starter. Frivolous.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.



orogenicman said:


> How does that support your claim that the energy of the universe came from elsewhere?/quote]
> 
> Lol, if the universe did not exist then how could the energy to create it NOT have come from elsewhere?
> 
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Again, if energy appeared from nothing by a devine act of power, you are violating the FLoT, something you said a providential act "NEVER" does, so you are contradicting yourself again. BTW, YOU capitalized "NEVER" when YOU made the claim!

To refresh your memory:


JimBowie1958 said:


> Ed, don't be such a buffoon.
> 
> Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God  intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of  thermodynamics.
> 
> lol



As far as the multiverse, I am well aware of the theories, which are still unproven though evidence appears to be mounting, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt that another universe transferred energy to our universe, and shot down your assumption that existing energy in another universe transferred to ours equals the creation of energy. It doesn't matter how many universes exist, an energy TRANSFER is not a CREATION of energy, but merely a decrease in one place and an equal increase in another


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Yes, WE discover them, obviously, but the cognitive quality of the universe that allows it to be described by human concepts is proof of pre-existing concepts of the universe and that implies design.

Each and EVERY system of law in existence is designed, show me one that isn't.



G.T. said:


> We do not know how they came to be, and design is most certainly not the only option. It's a bad argument. A non starter. Frivolous.



Lol, in your biased opinion, a bias so strong you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The Universe! Dope. The LAWS have no proof of design simply because they exist, what is this toddler logic?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.



Obviously based on what measure? See, my first post was correct and ya didn't even know it. Dumb dumb.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


You are wrong right out of the gate. At T=0 there was no space/time. There was energy however. Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Lol, you are hilarious. Again, we don't know how the energy got here, but a PROVIDENTIAL transfer of energy to our universe would not be a miracle or a violation of LoTD, the latter of which doesn't cover miracles anyway, lol. So it is just a knee slapper to see you libtards claim it does.

I also pointed out that to an observer in this universe a transfer of such energy would appear to be a creation of energy, and also that the LoTD obsiously do not apply to the first moments of the universe being created from the perspective of one in this universe.

lol, but go ahead and tangle all that up again and tell me how I said that the energy from Pluto got transferred to Mickey Mouse and this disproves that Bullwinkle could have ever existed! roflmao




edthecynic said:


> To refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



It does not equal the creation of energy but would appear as the creation of energy.

Since science can only examine things from the perspective of THIS universe it cannot distinguish or prove otherwise.



edthecynic said:


> It doesn't matter how many universes exist, an energy TRANSFER is not a CREATION of energy, but merely a decrease in one place and an equal increase in another



So, if that other place is within the Being of the Creator that would also not violate the LoTD either, right?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Moron, you cannot use the matter under contention as an example of your claim, dumbass.

It is not proven that our universe's concepts are not designed, but you merely claim them to be so and now want to use them as an example of your contention?

Take a critical thinking class some time; it might actually  help you.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> lol, OK; the Big Bang.



You're going to have to present a better line of evidence than a five word sentence. The Big Bang theory says that at t=0 the universe consisted of a point of infinite energy density. It says nothing about that energy originating from elsewhere.[/quote]



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.



Prior to t=0? lol If time (one of the four dimensions of our universe) began at the big bang, there can be no time <t=0. You can't have time before time IN OUR UNIVERSE.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> lol, if the universe did not exist then how could the energy to create it NOT have come from elsewhere?



The big bang theory only states the initial conditions of the universe. It says nothing about what, if anything, existed before. Now, it may be that the initial conditions started out as a bubble of infinite energy within some other universe, but we don't know that. What we do know is that our current universe is a close system and has been closed since the big bang. And closed systems cannot have energy transfers (or created or destroyed) from outside the system or to another system. They start with a finite amount of energy, and that energy, over time, converts to matter as the temperature of the system asymptotically approaches absolute zero.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> What line of evidence leads to your uncertainty?





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> The Big Bang.



The big bang does not say what you apparently think it says.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.
> ...



Lol, do you realize how stupid you are looking?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Prove it.

If there was no Space-Time, then how could it have been *IN* our universe, idjit?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No, dope - 

I didn't claim the universe's laws are not designed. 

I claimed that there's not proof they are designed, as your pinheaded self tries to proclaim using faulty logic. Try and keep up ya partisan jackass.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



irony!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



GENIUS! lol, that is how I KNOW it was not in our universe and came from outside of it.



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'

Good luck in addressing that malady!

roflmao


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So you are telling me that you know what the best minds on the planet don't even KNOW. lol That's funny.



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The Big Bang.
> ...





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'
> 
> Good luck in addressing that malady!
> 
> roflmao



If god created the universe, who or what created god? 

Here is your problem. You assume that causality existed before the universe came into being. Causality requires time, which didn't not exist in this universe at or before t=0. Indeed, to talk about time or causality before t=0 is meaningless.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



lol, you continue onward.

But context for lurkers.

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Eat shit, stupid fuck.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You CANT assert this you stupid fuck


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Bullshhit, the best minds have known it for millennia.



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, retreating to using smilies now? lolol

What God is a red herring. There is only one Creator, and which concept of the Creator best describes Him is irrelevant to our question regarding the system of natural laws and their obvious design.

But you, you cant even get your attributions straight in a message board post!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



lol, shit for brains, you have argued for no design for the whole time, now you move the goal posts to a soft 'there is no proof' bullshit.

EVERY system of laws (not under contention here) shows design, so there is no reason to believe that this universe's laws are not designed.

Secondly there is no definition of design applicable to this situation that does not also include a system of natural laws.

Eat shit troll.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow



Lol, comments like that from retarded assholes like you is a high compliment.

Thank you. I dread to ever have fascist pricks like you applaud anything I ever say, and thank God I don't really have to worry about it!

roflmao


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You are arguing from the first cause fallacy. If god is a first cause, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause? In which case, Chocolate:


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...





You're comparing human/societal laws to the laws of physics, or what retard?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



But I *DID* assert it, you stupid shit.

Now prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow
> ...



When your argument is based on a logical fallacy, it's not hard to call you names and point fingers at you and giggle since you're so pompous about being so stupid. 

"All laws show design" is not a fact. Your premise is a silly one.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Then prove me wrong by showing one that is proven to not be designed, you fucking cretin.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I don't need to prove you wrong, you prove it wrong yourself by not being able to prove it right. 

You cannot prove that the laws of physics are designed, and attempting to assert that "all laws are designed thus the laws of physics are designed!" is so below derp logic that I can't even believe you're a sentient human.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




If the Creator is an eternal being/object that exists outside of the flow of time and space then there is no first cause fallacy, dumbass.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I don't have to, I can just show you all the ones that ARENT proven to have been designed, and then your "ALL LAWS" assertion might appear as retarded to you as it does to everyone with a brain. 

And those laws that are not proven to have been designed are the laws of physics. 

Once you prove they're designed without using circular logic "all human laws are designed thus the laws of physics are designed!!! derp derp!!!!!"

Then we'll stop laughing at your dumb assed thread.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously 

designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove 

design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not 

designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to 

be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time 

to respond to trolls like you.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Lol, keep laughing, dumbass! I love it when idiots like you demonstrate how shallow secular metaphysical naturalism is.

Its really dumber than you are.

roflmao


----------



## RosieS (Mar 26, 2014)

QUOTE=G.T.;8834645]God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow[/QUOTE]

You'd get more sense outta the sack, evidently.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Here is why you're dumb. 


What I made big there?


Is wrong. The end. 


You cannot show that the laws of physics are designed without using circular logic. That's a fallacy. 

If you cant comprehend you cant comprehend. Ya can't teach a dog to sew either, I suppose.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

RosieS said:


> QUOTE=G.T.;8834645]God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow



You'd get more sense outta the sack, evidently.

Regards from Rosie[/QUOTE]

Hey stupid shit who cant respond to a post and get the attributions straight.

Go fuck yourself, you fucking fascist troll.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

RosieS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow
> ...



I cant believe he's a grown up. 

All apples Ive ever observed are red therefore all apples ever are red!!!!!


----------



## RosieS (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Le Sigh.

Your premise is faulty.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



It is not circular and is not a fallacy just because you don't like it, twat faced cock sucker.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

All apples Ive ever observed are red therefore all apples ever are red!!!!! 

All apples Ive ever observed are red therefore all apples ever are red!!!!! 

All human laws were designed thus ALL laws were designed!!!

/derp


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

RosieS said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Until you point out the fault it isn't faulty.

Stupid ass


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



ok, dunce. 

When you graduate grade school, lemme know.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



It's circular logic, dumbass.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

The fuckery is too much to even add some wit, so I guess we shouldn't be using the term fuck wit to describe the ignorance.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> All apples Ive ever observed are red therefore all apples ever are red!!!!!
> 
> All apples Ive ever observed are red therefore all apples ever are red!!!!!
> 
> ...



Stupid comparison since all apples are first green before becoming red.

Again, until you produce that black swan there is no grounds to believe that all swans are not white, in fact if you make part of the definition that swans are white then one will NEVER see a black swan by definition.

But what I am stating is more like 'All bricks I have ever seen are made by human beings at one degree removed or more.'

Till you can show me a brick not made by humans at one point or another, etc, then the statement stands, no matter how many tears you cry, little bitch.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

*The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. *


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RosieS said:
> ...



No it is not.

All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> *The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]
> 
> Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. *



All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



 


I'll let you figure it out.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> The fuckery is too much to even add some wit, so I guess we shouldn't be using the term fuck wit to describe the ignorance.



lol, down to condescension already?

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



All A are B

The universe  is A

Therefore the universe is also B

I have it figured out, stupid ass.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

I literally did laugh out loud one of those loll's somewhere.....not even gunna lie


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man

aaahahaahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

I've got some things to go do.

So you retards can high five each other and lie to yourselves some more till I get back, then I will sink each of your posts once again and I will keep doing it to show the lurkers that you guys are full of shit.

There is nothing behind your assertions but only an urge to bully people into compliance and silence and I will not be silenced by your troll shenanigans.

This is serious, this is to the bitter end. 

You fucking liars are the same since the Jacobins, lying cheating murdering anything it takes to advance your evil bile.

But people are waking up to your lies and dispelling your illusions.

Too bad, so sad, but your time in history is seeping away from you and in a few decades you will be like the fascist of other ages past; exposed, banished and seldom remembered.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Bump.

 What?  You didn't like the bunny suit?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I literally did laugh out loud one of those loll's somewhere.....not even gunna lie



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Lol, its a waste of space, so I deleted it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...





Fool cant even figure out what he's using is circular, while literally repeating it over and over and over again.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

Should I throw him a crumb?

The Universe's Laws are a system of laws. 
You're saying that every system of laws observed by humans is proven to have been designed. 
The universe is a system of laws observed by humans. 
It is not proven to have been designed, unless you're circling back to line#2 which is a fallacy, it is called circular reasoning/logic.

Dipstick.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

Further, and funnier - 

Is that the fact that there's no proof that the Laws of physics were designed by something means that making this statement: *"no system of laws is not designed" *

Is Mere speculation. A thousand yards from being fact or proving any theory.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Fool cant even figure out what he's using is circular, while literally repeating it over and over and over again.



I think  you mean that I cant tell when I am using a circular argument, which I am not, you stupid shit.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Should I throw him a crumb?
> 
> The Universe's Laws are a system of laws.
> You're saying that every system of laws observed by humans is proven to have been designed.
> ...



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Further, and funnier -
> 
> Is that the fact that there's no proof that the Laws of physics were designed by something means that making this statement: *"no system of laws is not designed" *
> 
> Is Mere speculation. A thousand yards from being fact or proving any theory.



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Fool cant even figure out what he's using is circular, while literally repeating it over and over and over again.
> ...



Oh, its very circular.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Argument:
All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Too shallow brained.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Right, but you didn't answer my question?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.  

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed?  If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Everything humans have ever observed has been described by 'human cognitive expressions'.  So you contend that everything in the observed universe was designed, and your evidence for that is the fact that humans have described it.

Humans put a description to everything they observe.  Everything with a human description was designed.  Therefore, everything was designed.  That about sum up the circle?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > *The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]
> ...



Feel free to prove that all things describable in human cognitive expressions (which really means anything humans describe) are designed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case





G.T. said:


> (you assert it, but it's neither fact nor proven so it cannot make a case),



It is fact and true by lack of a contrary example. Were I to say 'Humans have five fingers.' One might object that some have six or some have lost fingers and that would be an exception to a  valid description of human beings having six fingers.

But you cant find one case other than the point under contention as an example of human laws written that have no design to them, so my point is proven by induction.




JimBowie1958 said:


> and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.





G.T. said:


> (not obviously, whats obvious is that it's not proven)



Lol, yes, it is proven FACT.




JimBowie1958 said:


> You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.





G.T. said:


> (no, its not stupid already. Being complex does not infer design. That is a fact.)



Yes, it is stupid because  I never asserted copmplexities prove desig, you stupid fuckingliar.




JimBowie1958 said:


> Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.





G.T. said:


> (which is easy, since you cant prove the laws of phsysics were designed)



Done did it. You can keep saying I ddidnt but that is meaningless absent contrary data.




JimBowie1958 said:


> You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.





G.T. said:


> (you don't make proof in that manor (prove a negative), you prove your assertions --> which you have not done)



I proved it by inductive reason, and you try to disprove it with unwarranted assertion; my point stands.




JimBowie1958 said:


> But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.





G.T. said:


> (im not the one copy pasting the same thing over and over, that's you broken record)



Because they are in response to you, who are a broken record of stupid bulge.




JimBowie1958 said:


> In fact you carry on like you are proving something!





G.T. said:


> (I have proven without flaw that your premise is a fallacy.)



Lol, in your little world perhaps, but I leave it to lurkers to make up their own minds in that regard, and I doubt many of them will be persuaded by your stupid contrary assertions.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, whether I liked it or not is immaterial, and I thought it weird and meaningless for the record.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You've still have not answered my question.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What question are you referring to then?

I responded to your initial question here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...of-science-without-design-10.html#post8834697

What have I missed?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



If god is a first cause, in your opinion, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No.  All systems of expression have design doesn't even mean what you think it does, it just means the systems of expression have design, not the things they are describing.  So, the system of expressions used to describe the physical realities of our universe were (obviously) designed, but that does not in any way mean the physical realities themselves were designed.

Once again, you are using the fact that humans describe something as evidence that something was designed.  That makes no sense.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I also notice you failed to answer my question.  Is there a single thing in all the observed universe that was not designed?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Because time exists ONLY in terms of motion. At T=0 all the energy of the universe is compressed into one point and there was no motion and therefore no time. This singularity is a very unstable condition and went BANG almost immediately.

You can visualize it like throwing a ball straight up, as it rises it slows down and at its highest point for a moment, a singularity, the ball is neither rising nor falling. This position is unstable and the ball falls back to Earth almost immediately. The ball always existed throughout the entire cycle just like energy always existed throughout the entire Big Bang, Big Crunch cycle.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If god created the universe, who or what created god?
> ...


Another pontification without proof!

Why can't there be two or a team of 10s or billions of creators designing the laws of the universe. What law demands only one designer/creator?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Because of the flow of time. Time must have a starting point, while an eternal object/being does not as it exists outside the flow of space-time.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is a religious issue and I am not discussing it here other than to give my opinion of what the facts are.

And there is only one Creator that mankind has been stumbling through the centuries to try and understand.

but if you want to discuss that, why don't you start a new thread?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



A lot of talk around the point that there was no universe prior to t=0, and so there was no energy in it, because there was no universe for it.

You can duck the obvious by repeating that with no time there was no before to matter, but an observer from a parallel universe that has contact in some form would not have seen our universe, and it would be interesting to know what they would have recorded when our Big Bang took place.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Your question is irrelevant since I am not contesting it.

Sure, a rock has no design.

The chemical relations that exist as concepts that bind that rock together do have a systemic design.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Lol, who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I really mean, or that I am wrong like you are some kind of authority.

You are not. You are just another person posting on the internet.

You cant even repeat back to me what I have been saying.

You are a joke.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I'm not telling you what you really mean.  I don't think anyone, including you, knows what you really mean.  

I'm telling you what the things you are posting mean, which is not in line with the conclusions you are drawing.

So again.  That humans have come up with descriptions for various processes of the universe does not prove of imply a creator for those processes.  Our 'systems of cognitive description' as you insist on calling them prove only that we have designed a system of description for processes which we do not know the origins of.

There's nothing wrong with you believing a creator began the universe and put those processes in place.  However, the fact of their existence is not objective proof there was such a creator.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



We're getting somewhere!

Since a rock has no design, can it not be described with cognitive expression?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Yeah, ENERGY!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


I'll start a new thread when YOU stop pontificating about there being only one creator.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 26, 2014)

If there is a designer, who designed the designer?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


There was a UNIVERSE of ENERGY compressed into a single point at the Big Bang. There was never no energy in our universe and there will never be no energy in our universe, but there was a SINGULAR moment when time did not exist. 
Try again.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> If there is a designer, who designed the designer?


The Super Designer, of course.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 26, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > If there is a designer, who designed the designer?
> ...



Right. And how designed the super designer? 

I feel a headache coming on....


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


You are right, the Super Duper Designer.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Lol, I don't care if you think it OK, Miss Marples, but that you admit that this designed system of models we have for the universe, t hat accurately reflects the behavior of the universe but at the same time means NOTHING about the universe itself being designed is hilarious.

If I design a system of logical statements that interact in a logical and designed way to simulate almost perfectly the behavior of another system, then the system being modeled itself has design.

If that isn't apparent to you then you have a problem.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Lol, then it is a head ache of your own doing.

There is nothing prior to an object or person that is eternal, i.e. exists outside the flow of time.

Now if that gives you a head ache, maybe you shouldn't be playing with such dangerous things, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Except to an outside observer. A person in an external universe would see at what we call t=0 that at t=-1 there was no universe for all this energy. So it came from somewhere outside of it, or was conjured in a microsecond, take your pick.

You can try to hide behind the semantics of what the start of time in our universe means, but its paper thin and anyone can see though it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Lol, only to a libtard does giving a contrary opinion amount to PONTIFICATING, lol.

I said it was my opinion, and that has nothing to do with pontificating, you pedantic fraud.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, but energy is only part of what exists outside the flow of time.

There is lots more, and thousands of pretty deep thinkers have long recognized that, all the while atheists and igtheists have clamored on about a 'steady state' universe, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes, it can be, but not with cognitive expression that models the rocks behavior, except at a molecular level, but  at that level we are not talking about a rock but something entirely different.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 27, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


At T=-1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy contracting. At T=0 an outside observer would see our universe of energy neither expanding nor contracting. At T=1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy expanding. At no point would our universe of energy not exist.
Try again.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 27, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



As a geologist, I must say that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least *the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself.* It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.



"Reproduce", i.e. create life.
Life only comes from life.
Evolution does not explain original life


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 27, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So once again, your argument boils down to humanity being able to describe a system means the system being described was designed.  At least it's a step up from any human description being evidence of design!

Is there a single system of behavior in the observed universe which was not designed?


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 27, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I think the point is we agree on the laws underlying each system as all-inclusive or universal.
We don't have to agree that the SYSTEMS of expressing laws are universal, because they aren't, but differ between people or situations or applications. 

But in general the point is to have an agreement there ARE universal laws of
science, of human nature and governance, etc. that apply to ALL situations.

And most of our conflicts are about our perceptions, understanding or expression of these laws and relationships, and whether or not these align.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Bullshit.

At t=-1 there would be no universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, that is not what I said, and until you can repeat what I said correctly I will not further answer your question.





Montrovant said:


> At least it's a step up from any human description being evidence of design!
> 
> Is there a single system of behavior in the observed universe which was not designed?



Get what I said right and we can discuss it, but not till then.

There is no point in my repeatedly explaining things to you for you to get it totally wrong over and over.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

hortysir said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least *the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself.* It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.
> ...



That is true, as evolution does not include theories of abiogenesis.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Lol, what I stated had nothing to do with geology.

Again, you are not paying attention to what is posted.

What, you want to debate geology now? lol, which volcanic or sedimentary rocks?

roflmao


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



 Rocks have nothing to do with geology?  What have you been smoking???  You really don't want to get into a geology debate with me.  That would be a very bad move on your part.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Bullshit yourself.

At T=-1 our universe of energy would be contracting in the Big Crunch. The singularity at the end of the Big Crunch and the singularity before the Big Bang are one and the same.

Try again.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, I was talking about a hypothetical rock and said there is no reason to see design in it, other than its chemical properties, and you say that I therefore know nothing about rocks.

Can you essplain to me what obvious design there is then in a rock?

And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.

We would have to find something to debate on, but I somehow doubt there is anything we disagree on.

Wow, what a creepy feeling I just had.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Lol, there is no contraction, dumbass. The universe is speeding up in its expansion, not slowing to any kind of crunch.

There is at this time no evidence to support this notion other than a ridiculous urge to find a way out of the obvious beginning of the flow of time.

But mathematically we still know that time cannot be eternal and must have a start point, even if it goes through a gazillion cycles of some sort.

You lose, loser, betting on a set of outdated theories only conjured up to avoid the idea of a Creator.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


The farthest extremes of our universe of energy are accelerating toward the super massive universal black hole. Thank you for confirming it.
Try again.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I can repeat exactly what you said, but what it's supposed to mean is unclear.

You said that our having designed a system of models which accurately describe the behavior of the universe is evidence of design.  That, to me, says just what I did in my last post; you are using the fact that humanity can accurately describe some aspects of the universe as evidence that the universe was designed.

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

You have said that any system of laws is by definition designed.  If we ignore the laws in contention (those rules governing the behavior of the universe) what other laws do you know of to use to base that statement upon?  The only ones I am aware of are those humanity creates to govern itself.  As such, wouldn't that mean that your insistence that all systems of laws are designed, therefore the universe was designed, is based on the fact that humans design laws to govern themselves?

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.



JimBowie1958 said:


> But then again, that is not what I said.
> 
> If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.
> 
> If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.



Here you say that we are discovering laws that accurately model behavior.  Actually we discover behavior in the universe and create systems to model that behavior.  We don't discover the model for behavior; it wasn't created and left somewhere for us to come upon!  Humanity creates these systems, these models, with which we describe our observations of the universe.

Is any of that untrue?  If so, please, clarify for me.

You have multiple times talked about the conceptualization of laws of the universe, as though the fact that humans can conceptualize laws requires those things we are observing to be designed.  This is why I keep asking about whether there are things or systems that are not designed.  You very much seem to say that because humans have come up with concepts about the universe and how it works, and done so accurately, the universe must be designed.  So is it your contention that humans can only create accurate concepts about things that were designed?  And if so, what is your basis for that?

If that is not what you said, please, clarify for me.

I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread.  Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right.  Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
 Geology is the study of the Earth, primarily the rocks of which it is composed, but also other issues as well.  So to even suggest a hypothetical rock is to invoke a discussion of geology.  A rock is a collection of minerals (though sometimes composed of only one mineral).  A mineral is a naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic orderly crystalline structure, color, and hardness, the properties of which reflect the molecular/atomic composition and structure of the mineral.  This was the definition when I was a geology student in the 1970s, and remains the definition today.  I agree that there is no reason to see design in it.  But using your definitions of "designed", you appear to be having a hard time reconciling them with the facts of rocks and minerals, many of which are highly ordered.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.


 
 You can certainly try.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I agree that people can either interpret 
God to be the source or creator of all things
God to be the Universe or set of all things with no beginning or end but just self-existent

Either way, we can focus on the LAWS and principles within the
world or universe, whether or not we agree if the whole set has a finite beginning or not.

The point is to agree on the rules, principle or relationships.
Then the issues boil down to how can we reconcile
our different ways or systems of expressing these concepts and principles.
We are still talking about the same concepts, but our systems 
for representing these "universal truths" may not agree with each other.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



lol, no you try again when you are sober, dude

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So the difference between an atheist and a Islamacist is simply semantics?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My hypothetical rock was not made from minerals. It is made of Unobtanium.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 28, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, you got it right this time, but that is not what you said in the highlighted text prior.




Montrovant said:


> You have said that any system of laws is by definition defined.  If we ignore the laws in contention (those rules governing the behavior of the universe) what other laws do you know of to use to base that statement upon?  The only ones I am aware of are those humanity creates to govern itself.  As such, wouldn't that mean that your insistence that all systems of laws are designed, therefore the universe was designed, is based on the fact that humans design laws to govern themselves?
> 
> If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.



Definition: Law (Meaning of Law)
Definition: In arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist. 





Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > But then again, that is not what I said.
> ...



Yes, these concept exist outside of human perception, as ORo has said, and other philosophers and theologicans regarding OBjective Truth; it exists independent of human perception.




Montrovant said:


> You have multiple times talked about the conceptualization of laws of the universe, as though the fact that humans can conceptualize laws requires those things we are observing to be designed.  This is why I keep asking about whether there are things or systems that are not designed.  You very much seem to say that *because humans have come up with concepts about the universe and how it works, and done so accurately, the universe must be designed.*  So is it your contention that humans can only create accurate concepts about things that were designed?  And if so, what is your basis for that?
> 
> If that is not what you said, please, clarify for me.



The bolded and italicized definition leaves out the idea of a *system* of these concepts.

And no, humans are not entirely accurate regarding these laws but only approach complete accuracy




Montrovant said:


> I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread.  Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right.  Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.



This was a gold star effort, and I can answer what questions you have about My opinions on this, as long as we keep the lines distinct.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I still can't believe a movie that used that name for a scarce material is the highest grossing of all time.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 28, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



To keep it brief : is the fact that we use a system of concepts or laws somehow indicative of design, where a single concept or law is not?

And again, on what do you base this idea that anything we describe through a system of concepts must have been designed?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 29, 2014)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Close, that we are discovering an already existing system of modeling concepts that exist independently of our own perception shows that that system is designed, as such systems of said concepts can only come from a sentient being.



Montrovant said:


> And again, on what do you base this idea that anything we describe through a system of concepts must have been designed?



1) that it is true by definition. If a system of modeling concepts can accurately describe a system, then what is design if not this? If I find a garden in a natural forest, with lines of the same plant species all in watered rows, and everything in place that I might want to plant and maintain a garden, then what do I have to witness/observe before I have a justifiable high degree of certitude in deciding that that is a designed arrangement (and maybe I had better leave those five leaved plants alone and get out of here quickly?)

2) In every case we know of that can be described by such systems of modeling concepts, those systems are designed. By induction then we can form a tentative conclusion that all such systems are designed.


----------

