Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[ding]

Nope. Logic is the study of correct reasoning or good arguments. Logic requires intelligence, natural laws do not.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

 

[ding]

Nope. Logic is the study of correct reasoning or good arguments. Logic requires intelligence, natural laws do not.

Is it your belief that the theory of natural selection is random?

 

[alang1216]

The question hinges on intentionality. Was the universe intentionally created or was it an accidental happenstance of circumstance.

Actually I'm agnostic on that issue. I don't know how the universe was created but don't see any intellectual intent on display. Without evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with what I do know and predict the answer will be devoid of intent.

To answer that question I have thoughtfully studied the evidence we have available which is creation itself. What have you thoughtfully studied to answer that question?

Yes. Both science and religion studies bring me to the same conclusion. The universe is a product of nature not supernature.

Because from where I sit you haven't even taken the first step in answering that question which is to start by determining a realistic perception of God.

I have been studying the issue since I was 12 and determined then, and have had no reason to change my mind, that a realistic perception of God is an oxymoron. I know what is the general perception but I don't share it.

Everything you look at is skewed to fairy tales. So before you go and accuse someone - who has thoughtfully considered the origin questions for the past 20 years - of confirming his bias don't you think you should remove the log from your eye first?

Thanks Matthew but I think you and Seymour Flops have started from a place of faith and have worked backwards from there. You both share the same log, it is called the Bible.

 

[alang1216]

Is it your belief that the theory of natural selection is random?

Nothing random about it, neither is there any intent either.

 

[ding]

Actually I'm agnostic on that issue. I don't know how the universe was created but don't see any intellectual intent on display. Without evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with what I do know and predict the answer will be devoid of intent.

If you don't know how the universe was created then you can't know that any intellectual intent wasn't on display as YOU have no evidence either way. In other words, you are contradicting yourself and showing your bias.

 

[ding]

Yes. Both science and religion studies bring me to the same conclusion. The universe is a product of nature not supernature.

Can you be more specific? What did you learn from science that led you to your belief?

Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So wouldn't anything outside of our universe be considered supernatural?

 

[ding]

The universe is a product of nature not supernature.

Can you prove it?

 

[ding]

I have been studying the issue since I was 12 and determined then, and have had no reason to change my mind, that a realistic perception of God is an oxymoron. I know what is the general perception but I don't share it.

What was your deciding factor? And if you literally have no perception of God how can you know that you didn't create a self fulfilling prophecy that there must be no God. Because I wouldn't believe in your perception of God because you never had a perception of God that was based on anything other than fairy tales.

My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Did you look for this perception of God?

 

[ding]

Thanks Matthew but I think you and @Seymour Flops have started from a place of faith and have worked backwards from there. You both share the same log, it is called the Bible.

That would be incorrect. My starting point was the observation that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. From there it proceeded to a study of the origin of the universe.

 

[ding]

Nothing random about it, neither is there any intent either.

Exactly. It was entirely logical. Life and intelligence were preordained to exist by the laws of nature. Rules laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.

 

[ding]

I have been studying the issue since I was 12 and determined then

No offense intended but your argument does seem like it's the argument of a twelve year old. Don't you think it's time to update your evaluation using adult objectivity rather than being clouded by your religious experience as a child?

 

[alang1216]

If you don't know how the universe was created then you can't know that any intellectual intent wasn't on display as YOU have no evidence either way. In other words, you are contradicting yourself and showing your bias.

No, I started off saying I was agnostic. There may be intellectual intent and you may see it but I do not.

 

[alang1216]

Can you be more specific? What did you learn from science that led you to your belief?

Everything I have ever encountered has had an naturalistic explanation. No burning bushes.

Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So wouldn't anything outside of our universe be considered supernatural?

Not if the known laws of nature hold sway outside of our universe? How do you know?

 

[alang1216]

No offense intended but your argument does seem like it's the argument of a twelve year old. Don't you think it's time to update your evaluation using adult objectivity rather than being clouded by your religious experience as a child?

Now why would I be offended? I have not yet been impressed by the sophistication of your point of view so I guess we're even.

 

[alang1216]

Can you prove it?

It is not a math problem, so no. But your evidence to the contrary has not convinced me otherwise.

 

[alang1216]

What was your deciding factor? And if you literally have no perception of God how can you know that you didn't create a self fulfilling prophecy that there must be no God. Because I wouldn't believe in your perception of God because you never had a perception of God that was based on anything other than fairy tales.

My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

Poetic but can you prove any of it? What's the evidence besides you logical excursion?

Did you look for this perception of God?

A semantic construct? No.

 

[alang1216]

That would be incorrect. My starting point was the observation that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. From there it proceeded to a study of the origin of the universe.

Utopian, I'm sure Marx would agree, but the reality says you're dreaming.

 

[ding]

No, I started off saying I was agnostic. There may be intellectual intent and you may see it but I do not.

You stated you are agnostic on how the universe was created and then proceeded to say it couldn't have been created intentionally. That is inconsistent. You are literally making an affirmative statement after admitting you can't make any affirmative statements.

 

[alang1216]

Exactly. It was entirely logical. Life and intelligence were preordained to exist by the laws of nature. Rules laws and information are signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.

You can define the word logic any way you want but to me it is not the opposite of random.

 

[alang1216]

You stated you are agnostic on how the universe was created and then proceeded to say it couldn't have been created intentionally. That is inconsistent. You are literally making an affirmative statement after admitting you can't make any affirmative statements.

What I said was there was no evidence it was created intentionally.