How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[orogenicman]

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!

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]

Hi Orogenic:

1.

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.

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.

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?

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.

And abortion pushing libtards appreciate it even less, apparently.

That was a poor response, even coming from you.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

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.

Not so.

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

 

[ABikerSailor]

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]

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.

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]

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.....

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.

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.

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]

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.

And abortion pushing libtards appreciate it even less, apparently.

That was a poor response, even coming from you.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Would I? Do you have any evidence that hard radiation is a result of anything other than isotopic decay?

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

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

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

 

[RosieS]

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]

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.

Would I? Do you have any evidence that hard radiation is a result of anything other than isotopic decay?

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

Would I? Do you have any evidence that hard radiation is a result of anything other than isotopic decay?

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

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

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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?

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

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]

Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.

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

 

[edthecynic]

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!