Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[ding]

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


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

That's not telling me anything at all. You really shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush in the first place. Your logic is flawed.

Why would laws of nature what describes what is inside of space and time apply outside of space and time. What exactly is it that you believe exists outside of space and time? Because the presence of matter created space and time. So anything which is outside of space and time must be no thing.

 

[ding]

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.

Then I guess we see each other the same way with only thing different being my arguments don't contradict themselves like yours.

 

[ding]

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

I have evidence for my beliefs. I can prove my beliefs. You literally just stated you have none.

 

[ding]

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


A semantic construct? No.

That the universe was created to produce life and intelligence. Nothing semantic about it. Just good old tangible evidence.

 

[ding]

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

Or evidence that it wasn't. That's what agnostic means; that you can't know because it is unknowable. And yet you made a declarative statement that it was not created intentionally. That's contradictory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, this is all religious wishlist folly. Life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Duh.

 

[alang1216]

That's not telling me anything at all. You really shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush in the first place. Your logic is flawed.

Or yours is.

Why would laws of nature what describes what is inside of space and time apply outside of space and time. What exactly is it that you believe exists outside of space and time? Because the presence of matter created space and time. So anything which is outside of space and time must be no thing.

And your evidence for this unknowable 'no thing' is logic based on assumptions based on faith?

 

[alang1216]

Then I guess we see each other the same way with only thing different being my arguments don't contradict themselves like yours.

Coming from the person who claims to know 'no thing'? That sounds contradictory to me.

 

[alang1216]

I have evidence for my beliefs. I can prove my beliefs. You literally just stated you have none.

Prove something then. Anything would be a good beginning.

 

[alang1216]

That the universe was created to produce life and intelligence. Nothing semantic about it. Just good old tangible evidence.

Evidence? Your 'logic' is based on ignorance so calling it 'evidence' is generous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Coming from the person who claims to know 'no thing'? That sounds contradictory to me.

It's the snake oil salesman, incoherent sales pitch.

You have no evidence, because the things he claims are "not physical". The rigged game. Basically, it's just the apologist tap dancing that is really just introducing "MAGIC!" into the discussion.

Basically, you don't understand it and have no evidence, because it is magic.

But, even pseudo-intellectuals know how childish and stupid THAT sounds, so they make all this effort to put a tuxedo on the turd. And we get treated to verbose, vapid rants that read like a 6 year old just discovered what a thesaurus is and is trying to cover his tracks. They think it makes this childish idea sound smarter to call it anything but what it is:


"Magic, cuz I say so."

 

[ding]

Or yours is.


And your evidence for this unknowable 'no thing' is logic based on assumptions based on faith?

You mean my logic that you shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush? No, I'm pretty sure that logic is spot on. It's your logic that no burning bush equals no God that is flawed.

My evidence that no thing exists outside of space and time is based upon the simple fact that the presence of matter/energy literally creates space and time. So whatever it is that exists outside of space and time that created this universe from nothing, it can't be matter or energy but must be beyond matter and energy. Consciousness fits that bill. So, no. my position is not based upon faith. Your argument is based upon a 12 year old's flawed understanding of Genesis and you never looked back which is really weird. I constantly re-evaluate my positions.

 

[alang1216]

you made a declarative statement that it was not created intentionally. That's contradictory.

What I said was there was no evidence it was created intentionally, not the same thing. No offense, but if you need me to lower the grade level I write at, I'm happy to do so.

 

[ding]

Coming from the person who claims to know 'no thing'? That sounds contradictory to me.

How so? I intentionally avoid using my personal witness as evidence when discussing the answers to the origin questions with people who have never given those questions any serious consideration.

 

[ding]

Prove something then. Anything would be a good beginning.

I have many times. It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It's literally written into the fabric of existence. The universe is way too finely tuned for it to be logical that it's just a coincidence. That coupled with the fact we literally have an example of "no thing" existing before the universe seals the deal.

 

[ding]

Evidence? Your 'logic' is based on ignorance so calling it 'evidence' is generous.

The physical, biological and moral laws of nature say otherwise. How exactly is my logic based upon ignorance?

 

[alang1216]

You mean my logic that you shouldn't have been expecting a burning bush? No, I'm pretty sure that logic is spot on. It's your logic that no burning bush equals no God that is flawed.

So this 'no thing' follows your logical thinking? Here is a quick lesson in logic, something you appear to need, a burning bush is evidence for God, but no burning bush is just that, no burning bush, not evidence for no God. I was not and could not prove a negative.

My evidence that no thing exists outside of space and time is based upon the simple fact that the presence of matter/energy literally creates space and time. So whatever it is that exists outside of space and time that created this universe from nothing, it can't be matter or energy but must be beyond matter and energy. Consciousness fits that bill. So, no. my position is not based upon faith. Your argument is based upon a 12 year old's flawed understanding of Genesis and you never looked back which is really weird. I constantly re-evaluate my positions.

Unsupported leap of logic: So whatever it is that exists outside of space and time that created this universe from nothing, it can't be matter or energy but must be beyond matter and energy. Consciousness fits that bill. Word games that prove nothing and have no meaning. And how exactly do you know the universe was created from nothing?

 

[ding]

What I said was there was no evidence it was created intentionally, not the same thing. No offense, but if you need me to lower the grade level I write at, I'm happy to do so.

So according to you the universe being created to produce life and intelligence could not in any way be intentional? We know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

 

[alang1216]

I have many times. It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It's literally written into the fabric of existence. The universe is way too finely tuned for it to be logical that it's just a coincidence. That coupled with the fact we literally have an example of "no thing" existing before the universe seals the deal.

Seems like an elaborate 'god of the gaps' argument. We don't know how, when, or why universe popped into existence. Is this the only universe that popped into existence? Is there a control? The whole 'no thing' is a figment of your imagination.

 

[alang1216]

So according to you the universe being created to produce life and intelligence could not in any way be intentional? We know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

I don't know who or what created the universe: agnosticism. You want to believe in a creator, fine by me but don't expect me to hop on board until I see some evidence, not just wordplay.