Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Richo83]

Why is the assumption that the physical Universe is unconditioned perfectly acceptable?

Unconditioned in what way?

Haven't we found bacteria in a martian meteorite? If so, hardly evidence of a "billion to one shot".

You know what I mean figgy. Anyway the presence of life on other planets makes earth even less miraculous.

Nothing can come from nothing mate!

I aint saying matter came from nothing, I am saying that the forces of energy, space and time precede the universe, and have a hand in it. Anyway I can play the regression game too, what created this creator? You say this "force" just always existed, welll I could say the same thing about these energy forces we commonly know as forces of science.

Something existed. It always existed. And it was organised!

Assumptions figgy. Organization by the way doesn't have to be by something, if structures of science are consistent, than these forces "organized" the universe into plausable, scientifically possible objects.

Guesswork.

You think saying the universe had to be organized by a designer is not guesswork too? Sheesh figgy.

The main ID arguments as I view them is that there are obvious examples of stasis, and sudden disappearance and replacement in the fossil records. Darwinists agree that this is the truth, because otherwise they wouldn't have evolved their theory to incorporate punctuated equilibrium (an impressive sounding band-aid to cover up the cracks in pure gradualism).

Meh, I think the main argument for ID, something our "scientist" H2K has shown, is that people think the world is too complex, too good, too unlikely to be left to science. They fail to realise that the only reason why they think that this world is unlikely is because they put certain values on this world, and think: wow, a world so great as ours, it must be designed!

 

[Richo83]

I love it when Academics (the worlds dumbest human beings) ridicule real intellect.

Like I said...

you are cute

Okay so I'll just inform Spinoza, Decartes, Kant et al all those involved in both science and philosophy, true academics that they're the "dumbest" human beings on earth.

 

[H2F]

Okay so I'll just inform Spinoza, Decartes, Kant et al all those involved in both science and philosophy, true academics that they're the "dumbest" human beings on earth.

Philosophers are not academics.

 

[Richo83]

Philosophers are not academics.

Yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia

Academia, Academe, or the Academy are collective terms for the community of students and scholars engaged in higher education and research.

An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university, college, or similar institution in post-secondary (tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder.

Says nothing about them not being able to be philosophers, and many people in the field of IR study are called academics, especially when they delve into empirical statistics of international law, politics and economics.

Anyway many of the philosophers linked their scientific theories into philosophy, see the fields of philosophy of science, and see how science often dabbled in philosophical ideas.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Anyway.................I still haven't seen any refutation of my excellent theory that "God" thought us all in to reality via a simple wave function collapse.

Richo? Skilts? Anyone?

 

[Schism]

Anyway.................I still haven't seen any refutation of my excellent theory that "God" thought us all in to reality via a simple wave function collapse.

Richo? Skilts? Anyone?

And i challenge any of you to refute my theory that the god Mario mentions is indeed the flying spaghetti monster

 

[Mario the Lothario]

And i challenge any of you to refute my theory that the god Mario mentions is indeed the flying spaghetti monster

I'm happy to concede that point already.

 

[Richo83]

Anyway.................I still haven't seen any refutation of my excellent theory that "God" thought us all in to reality via a simple wave function collapse.

Richo? Skilts? Anyone?

Don't remember this being asked, but I'm no expert in the theory of wave function collapse. You claim your idea as if unless we respond you stand victorious, evo and I have this theory that if someone is going to discuss god, someone has to give an account of what this fellow is. You see, IMO, god has to be a cognitive being, if he's just forces of energy he's no different than the scientific forces of energy that sceince talks about. I mean many people believe in forces preceeding the big bang which caused such an event, yet god isn't " everything that which existed before the big bang" it describes a designer, a creator, a manifesting object creating the universe. Problem is, I've never seen someone be able to describe this fellow. People ask us to discuss this fellow when they can't even describe the thing themselves! And apparently it's the atheists who are crazy.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

And what if someone believes in ID in principle, but not in god?

Take, for example, the theory that we are eternal beings that merely imagine ourselves into 'life' as we understand it. The material world.

Does that fall under ID? Am I using the wrong term to describe some of the thoughts I have on the subject?

 

[Mario the Lothario]

And what if someone believes in ID in principle, but not in god?

Indeed, what if WE are god?

Take, for example, the theory that we are eternal beings that merely imagine ourselves into 'life' as we understand it. The material world.

Does that fall under ID? Am I using the wrong term to describe some of the thoughts I have on the subject?

Interesting you state that KP, as I have just put forward a similiar thought. Check out my example below.

Don't remember this being asked, but I'm no expert in the theory of wave function collapse. You claim your idea as if unless we respond you stand victorious, evo and I have this theory that if someone is going to discuss god, someone has to give an account of what this fellow is. You see, IMO, god has to be a cognitive being, if he's just forces of energy he's no different than the scientific forces of energy that sceince talks about. I mean many people believe in forces preceeding the big bang which caused such an event, yet god isn't " everything that which existed before the big bang" it describes a designer, a creator, a manifesting object creating the universe. Problem is, I've never seen someone be able to describe this fellow. People ask us to discuss this fellow when they can't even describe the thing themselves! And apparently it's the atheists who are crazy.

Man, you're uptight.

Okay, if we have the ability to collapse electrons out of the wave function by simple observation:

[YOUTUBE]EpSqrb3VK3c[/YOUTUBE]

Then who is to say that we are not "observations" collapsed out of the superposition by the flying spaghetti monster (God, collective consciousness, our souls, Jimi Hendrix, whatever)?

Didn't Nietzsche claim that it is far more likely that we are thought, rather than we think? (clarification philosophers please?)

 

[Richo83]

And what if someone believes in ID in principle, but not in god?

Then what created us?

Take, for example, the theory that we are eternal beings that merely imagine ourselves into 'life' as we understand it. The material world.

Does that fall under ID? Am I using the wrong term to describe some of the thoughts I have on the subject?

Indeed, what if WE are god?

I generally oppose what I like to call manifestation spirituality ideas, like "matter didn't create us, we created matter". I file the notion that we are our own creators, or that we "imagine" ourselves into life, under that catergory.

There was a time in the universe when life existed, but humans didn't. The question is who and why these animals, and the big bang which lead to such material forms, happened. There was no humanity to play god or to manifest existence through imagination, it was simply a question of source, where is the source of this creation? People usually describe this source as god, failing though to describe what this god is or how they can prove that that such an object designed anything. It seems to me that the main premise of ID is that the world is too amazing to be caused by random factors. It is a human tendency to see the good that happens to them must be ordaned. It's like the tribe who thinks that since they have good crops this year, the gods must like them. Humans have a dendency to see something as special when really it's just a mundane manifestation which just happened to roll by the human path. Fact is, the manifestation of existence fits scientific principles, it also possibly fits a principle of a blind structure manifesting material existence. We see what exists as too special for science because we put judgement on what exists as too special for the mundane, not realising that we are just a smarter manifestation of other manifestations which lead from other manifestations. Figgy, H2F, unless you can find me a point where you actually see design, instead of just saying "well it couldn't possibly fall off a scientific truck" I'll stick with mine thanks.

Here's another point for anyone still reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Noncoherence

Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.

Fair point that.

 

[Richo83]

Didn't Nietzsche claim that it is far more likely that we are thought, rather than we think? (clarification philosophers please?)

Meh, more that we are a sum of our thoughts rather than a living thought IMO. Freddy's ideas of identity were somewhat similar to the bundle/anatta bridage, one's "personality" isn't inherent but simply a sum of one's actions.

 

[FIGJAM]

Don't remember this being asked, but I'm no expert in the theory of wave function collapse.

It is interesting though how the act of observation shapes physical reality (eg. twin slit experiment).

In this event, then could one not view "God" as the ultimate observer who shapes the physical reality from its infinite ocean of potential.

You claim your idea as if unless we respond you stand victorious, evo and I have this theory that if someone is going to discuss god, someone has to give an account of what this fellow is.

I think you like the athropomorphic idea "God" because it permits you to dismiss it with prejudice.

You see, IMO, god has to be a cognitive being, if he's just forces of energy he's no different than the scientific forces of energy that sceince talks about.

"God" (and I'd rather not use any word) is cognitive. As evidenced by the twin slit experiment, consciousness is required for manifestation of elemental particles.

"God" is the "scientific" forces of energy, which are in effect laws, and "God" is also another force and is mind.

Problem is, I've never seen someone be able to describe this fellow. People ask us to discuss this fellow when they can't even describe the thing themselves! And apparently it's the atheists who are crazy.

[YOUTUBE]rd2wqiUriuM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[evo]

Okay, if we have the ability to collapse electrons out of the wave function by simple observation:

I've been lead to believe that the above is a common misunderstanding of the phenomena. Not being a quantum phycisist myself however I can't argue to the fact.

 

[FIGJAM]

I've been lead to believe that the above is a common misunderstanding of the phenomena. Not being a quantum phycisist myself however I can't argue to the fact.

I hate the "You need to be a specialist scientist in this field to see how it has a desireable atheistic interpretation." argument.



Apealing to "authority".

 

[evo]

I hate the "You need to be a specialist scientist in this field to see how it has a desireable atheistic interpretation." argument.

Hey,just passing on what I've read rollyeyes.

But hey, if you wan't to continue building your philosophy on a foundation of pop psychology and pseudo science I'm well aware anything I say wont divert you from that.

Apealing to "authority".

Says the guy who appeals to David Bohm at least once in each of these threads.

 

[Corpuscles]

Where is BomberGal when she is needed?

Evolution:

Once upon a time there was NOTHING! then BANG! "stuff" was created. This stuff was amazing it had super characteristics that formed complex relationships and the universe.

Then some elements randomly eventually by accident fused together in some unique environmental condition to form a single cell bacteria with no nucleus. Somehow it had what we call LIFE! it could reproduce.

Within this accidental occurance it had the capacity to form the ongoing basis of extremely and increasingly complex development , interaction and change?


Very Bloody.... Intelligent... "stuff" that accidentally came from NOTHING!

We humans know very very little about anything!

 

[skipper kelly]

We humans know very very little about anything!

and less about nothing.

 

[FIGJAM]

Hey,just passing on what I've read rollyeyes.

What exactly??

FWIW, I have no doubt that there will be an atheistic angle on the double slit experiment by some reknowned quantum physicist, and that the theory will sound mighty pretty.

But that is the very nature of duality. Science isn't about mere observation like it claims to be; it's about swinging said observations into a specific world view.

But hey, if you wan't to continue building your philosophy on a foundation of pop psychology and pseudo science...

Lol! I must really offended you with them rolleyes.

Says the guy who appeals to David Bohm at least once in each of these threads.

You forgot Max Planck.

 

[Niximus]

Where is BomberGal when she is needed?

Evolution:

Once upon a time there was NOTHING! then BANG! "stuff" was created. This stuff was amazing it had super characteristics that formed complex relationships and the universe.

Then some elements randomly eventually by accident fused together in some unique environmental condition to form a single cell bacteria with no nucleus. Somehow it had what we call LIFE! it could reproduce.

None of that is evolution.

Within this accidental occurance it had the capacity to form the ongoing basis of extremely and increasingly complex development , interaction and change?


Very Bloody.... Intelligent... "stuff" that accidentally came from NOTHING!

We humans know very very little about anything!

As opposed to an all powerful, all knowing, single being coming from nothing?

 

[Corpuscles]

and less about nothing.

True

Pity some humans pretend "nothing" favoured their ancestors, others think "Nothing" later changed allegience, others say meditate and try to become nothing, other ratbags declare they are the SON clone of Nothing.

It is not illogical nor far fetched to sugggest the original "nothing" must be an intrinsic part or whole basis for all "stuff"

 

[evo]

What exactly??

That saying that the double slit experiment empirically proves that human observation/(consciousness ) can collapse matter.

FWIW, I have no doubt that there will be an atheistic angle on the double slit experiment by some reknowned quantum physicist, and that the theory will sound mighty pretty.

"Atheistic angle" hehe.

Deepak chopra board.

But that is the very nature of duality. Science isn't about mere observation like it claims to be; it's about swinging said observations into a specific world view.

Right,the materialist/physicalist world view.It is a bit hard to apply physics and chemistry to things that aren't physical.

So what is with the endless congo line of new agers,gurus,gnostics etc. feeling the need to use science to ad gravitas to their spiritulism and philosophies?

As I said,they are basing their philosophy/religion/worldview on folk psychology and pseudo science.

Lol! I must really offended you with them rolleyes.

I must admit the rolleyes does really piss me off.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

That saying that the double slit experiment empirically proves that human observation/(consciousness ) can collapse matter.

The double slit experiment has stood up to repeated testing and the evidence is conclusive.

I'd love to see you apply that logic to some of your own ideas. Can you prove that something besides human observation supports evolution?

-----> <-----

 

[Contra Mundum]

That saying that the double slit experiment empirically proves that human observation/(consciousness ) can collapse matter.

"Atheistic angle" hehe.

Deepak chopra board.

Right,the materialist/physicalist world view.It is a bit hard to apply physics and chemistry to things that aren't physical.

So what is with the endless congo line of new agers,gurus,gnostics etc. feeling the need to use science to ad gravitas to their spiritulism and philosophies?

As I said,they are basing their philosophy/religion/worldview on folk psychology and pseudo science.

I must admit the rolleyes does really piss me off.

That is the worst insult I have ever seen on Big Footy!!

 

[evo]

The double slit experiment has stood up to repeated testing and the evidence is conclusive.

Your video misrepresents the interpretation.As do many of the new agers.

I'd love to see you apply that logic to some of your own ideas. Can you prove that something besides human observation supports evolution?

-

Clearly you didn't understand 'my logic' whatever the ferk that means.

I never said something beside human observation is at play.