• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design ...

Yes, the finite is but a subset of the infinite. The temporal is but a subset of the Eternal. And the material is but a subset of the immaterial. This is how the material universe was established.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I think the immaterial is a subset of the material. Otherwise, we're in full agreement.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
I disagree. The immaterial and the material are mutually exclusive.

The finite is a subset of the infinite, within mathematics, for some definitions of "infinite". For others, the infinite may well be a subset of the finite (for the finite distance from 1 to 2, there are an infinite number of points between the two). The temporal we know--the eternal we cannot. If there was no beginning to time, then (logically) there is an eternity before we come to exist. But if there is an eternity before we come to exist, we cannot have yet passed through this eternity to come to exist yet...The concept of some form of time before time-space began is logically indefensible. Whether time has an endpoint or not we do not know, but it has a beginning. So, logically, does eternity. So I would think (I'd love to hear alternate arguments) that the temporal is identical to the eternal. There is no time outside of time-space.
 
Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design ...

new drkitten said:
I dunno. For millions of years in the history of the Earth, it was populated only by bacteria and other single-celled creatures. These are, not to put too fine a point on it, not noted for their ability to comprehend things. And yet, uncomprehending and incapable of comprehending, they still existed.

I see no reason that we should expect to have a better comprehension of the universe than bacteria do -- it's not like the universe is obliged to be here for our personal convenience.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't completely clear. Has nothing to do with our personal convenience. In as much as bacteria can comprehend, the universe is comprehensible to bacteria. If one assumes intelligence evolved in the universe, it is hard to imagine any intelligence evolving with a sense of comprehension for anything other than universe which spawned it. Clearly, our eyes evolved to comprehend light. How would any organism function in a universe which it did not comprehend, to the extent a given organism has the ability or need to comprehend.

If, by intelligence, one means, essentially, the ability to comprehend, what would that intelligence be comprehending if not universe in which exists? How would an organism survive in a universe it can not comprehend, in the broadest sense of the word. What would any organism be comprehending if not the universe in which it finds itself? Also clearly, any intelligent organism to which comprehension is essential to its survival, ourselves for example, could not exist in an incomprehensible universe.
 
Iacchus said:
Oh I can, it's the total absence of something.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

No such luck as chance.
Click to expand...

Please rephrase so as to make sense.

Yes, your question is unanswerable without a God. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

It is unanswerable, too, with God. (God as a name has a capital 'G', god as a thing does not ;)).

Mercutio has responded to this most satisfactorily.

As I have already said, your proof exists in your demand for a "meaningful" answer.
Click to expand...

My demand is simply a logical objection to your conjecture. You give a statement, "existance demands meaning", and I simply asked you to provide us with your logical proof that validates your assertion. So how does the fact that I ask for a logical proof provide the answer to my objection? How does the fact that you have provided not a single logical argument prove that there is meaning to the universe because it exists?
 
Mercutio said:
I disagree. The immaterial and the material are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The finite is a subset of the infinite, within mathematics, for some definitions of "infinite". For others, the infinite may well be a subset of the finite (for the finite distance from 1 to 2, there are an infinite number of points between the two).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The temporal we know--the eternal we cannot. If there was no beginning to time, then (logically) there is an eternity before we come to exist. But if there is an eternity before we come to exist, we cannot have yet passed through this eternity to come to exist yet...The concept of some form of time before time-space began is logically indefensible. Whether time has an endpoint or not we do not know, but it has a beginning. So, logically, does eternity. So I would think (I'd love to hear alternate arguments) that the temporal is identical to the eternal. There is no time outside of time-space.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

ETA: Yarr matey! This be a sea-worthy argument! I like t' cut of yer jib!
 
You still haven't answered my question, Iacchus. Are you dodging me now? Here it is again:

c4ts said:
Look at the second example. Would the composition of the wool string change if it were observed (but not acted upon) by different people?
Click to expand...

Here is the second example I mentioned:

I am not saying all properties are external. For example, if I had a wool string, and I took out a nylon one, and asked you which was the wool string, it would be the same answer no matter what the other string was made out of. Therefore, composition is a property internal to the object.
Click to expand...

As we have agreed earlier (unless you suddenly object, in which case I would like you to explain why), the shortness of the string is a property that is external to the string itself. If I were to change observers, the string might not be short. It could be long if the observer can see a shorter string which the other observer missed, or if he has a much shorter string in mind.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
That's true if both exist. I was suggesting that the immaterial is the empty subset of the material. :D

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Wow...that's deep. I am trying to picture the Venn Diagram for that. I was thinking separate circles, but you are thinking just one circle, with a circle of area=0 within it?

[barbie]
Math is hard!
[/barbie]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom