Universal Design

[daenku32]

What are you suggesting, that the laws of physics are not immutable and set in place, and just happened to pop up of their own accord?

Assuming that with 'laws of physics' you mean strong force, weak force etc... I'd suggest that laws of physics came to be just as the erosion on my yard.

They didn't have any other option.

If the question of 'what was there first?' can't be answered, why would that matter to any of us?

 

[Iacchus]

Assuming that with 'laws of physics' you mean strong force, weak force etc... I'd suggest that laws of physics came to be just as the erosion on my yard.

They didn't have any other option.

If the question of 'what was there first?' can't be answered, why would that matter to any of us?

Hey, sounds like something which has already been "predefined" to me. The only question is, by whom? Or, are saying it's not possible to predefine what the mice will to do by constructing a maze?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm trying to suggest that somebody has set the ground rules -- externally --which channels the outcome or event.

What if the ground rules are causal but random? Say that the gradient which creates the electromagnetic force is like a slop of sand that slides, the angle of the slope could be very arbitrary, it could be shallow or it could be steep.
In Alan Guth or string theory they talk about how the potential forces of the nascent universe may have been changing rapidily and just happened to freeze at the moment of creation. therefore the 'constants' we have might have been slightly different, speculatively, and therefore mutable.
It doesn't matter. Things just don't exist in and of their own accord.
Give me any scenario for creation and I can come up with an acausal or random version where creation was unintended.
However, the sand dune follows the rules which are contingent to the sand dune. The sand dune is not there arbitrarily.
They are causal but not deterministic, given a knowledge of all the forces and positions, you still can not be predicting the outcome, isn't that cool. The patterns arise from chaos but are not determined they are contingent.

Without the ground rules, nothing would exist.

Mere assertion, for all we know the forces of nature could be randomly fluctuating, as long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other.


The Universe is very much like the unfolding of a flower. Hey, now didn't I say this once before?

Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.

 

[BillHoyt]

What are you suggesting, that the laws of physics are not immutable and set in place, and just happened to pop up of their own accord?

I suggested nothing about immutability. Please read what I wrote. But yes, I am suggesting that they popped up of their own accord, or from more fundamental underlying principles. But that hardly matters for the point I was making.

You are question begging and, for reasons unknown, completely blind to that fact. You insist god must be behind it all. Why? Because, you insist, design implies a designer. Run with your own logic just one step further and you see that, for the same reason, god must have had a designer. The infinite regress is painfully obvious, but, I'm sure, will continue to elude you.

It says he knows a lot more about it than we do.

No, it says you presume the proposition you are trying to prove.

Goes to show that we only see what we want to see. So?

Listen, make a list of the reasons you think the universe must have had a designer. Then apply that list to your supposed designer. Why doesn't it need a designer? And that designer? And so on. God gotta daddy. This is the inevitable logical conclusion if you keep working your same logic at each layer. But you cranks never see that because your goal is not to get to the truth. Your goal is always to prove what you already believe to be the truth. You stop there. Apply your sophomoric logic to god, my friend, and you watch the story crumble.

But I won't hold my breath, because your goal has never been to get to the truth.

 

[Iacchus]

I suggested nothing about immutability. Please read what I wrote. But yes, I am suggesting that they popped up of their own accord, or from more fundamental underlying principles. But that hardly matters for the point I was making.

Even more fundamental than the fundamentals themselves? Exactly!

You are question begging and, for reasons unknown, completely blind to that fact. You insist god must be behind it all. Why? Because, you insist, design implies a designer. Run with your own logic just one step further and you see that, for the same reason, god must have had a designer. The infinite regress is painfully obvious, but, I'm sure, will continue to elude you.

Why do I need to insist or, presume anything? Do I need to presume that 1 + 1 = 2?

No, it says you presume the proposition you are trying to prove.

A very interesting word, "presume." So, you presume that I'm the one making the presumption, right? If you're looking for infinite regression, you've got it!

Listen, make a list of the reasons you think the universe must have had a designer. Then apply that list to your supposed designer. Why doesn't it need a designer? And that designer? And so on. God gotta daddy. This is the inevitable logical conclusion if you keep working your same logic at each layer. But you cranks never see that because your goal is not to get to the truth. Your goal is always to prove what you already believe to be the truth. You stop there. Apply your sophomoric logic to god, my friend, and you watch the story crumble.

And yet it's not a matter of must or, supposing anything. Unless of course I'm trying to work backwards which, apparently is what I need to do with you. Hey, I can't help it if some people can't think in the forward sense.

But I won't hold my breath, because your goal has never been to get to the truth.

Yeah, and don't you wish everyone was standing in your shoes?

 

[BillHoyt]

Even more fundamental than the fundamentals themselves? Exactly!

No. Please read what I wrote.

Why do I need to insist or, presume anything? Do I need to presume that 1 + 1 = 2?

Please stop the red herrings and directly address the point I made.

A very interesting word, "presume." So, you presume that I'm the one making the presumption, right? If you're looking for infinite regression, you've got it!

More red herrings.

And yet it's not a matter of must or, supposing anything. Unless of course I'm trying to work backwards which, apparently is what I need to do with you. Hey, I can't help it if some people can't think in the forward sense.

You are being ridiculous and continue to distract from the point I made.

Yeah, and don't you wish everyone was standing in your shoes?

When you ever decide your goal is to get to the truth, then please astound us all by actually addressing my points.

Here is the propositon once again: You claim that the evidence of the universe, its wondrous complexity and all, indicates design. You further claim the existence of design indicates a designer. You conclude god. Of course, god is also wondrously complex and would seem to indicate design no less than we. Therefore, using your own sophomoric logic, god gotta daddy.

There is, of course, no way out of your dilemma except, of course, to deflect away from the very issue I raised. Which, of course, explains your sophomoric behavior.

 

[Iacchus]

By the way, do you realize that yours, mine and everyone else's existence is merely a matter of what we presume it to be? So keep your hands off my presumptions please!

 

[scribble]

No. Please read what I wrote.
...
Please stop the red herrings and directly address the point I made.
...
More red herrings.
...
You are being ridiculous and continue to distract from the point I made.
...
When you ever decide your goal is to get to the truth, then please astound us all by actually addressing my points.

Hahaha... damn, that all looks familiar.

I see you've met our budding sophist, eh Bill?

 

[BillHoyt]

By the way, do you realize that yours, mine and everyone else's existence is merely a matter of what we presume it to be? So keep your hands off my presumptions please!

More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

 

[Iacchus]

More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

Nonsense!!!

 

[Z]

That's the point, Iacchus - your arguments are nonsense.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the universe was created, save that it exists - and this is not evidence at all.

But if you insist logically that the universe had a creator, then you must further carry logic to invoke a creator of the creator, and so forth.

This is a known situation in mathematics - any system in mathematics can only be fully described by using a system one order higher than the system being described. (I may have that statement off a bit, but isn't that the gist of it?)

Now, I believe in God - and if I were to assert with certainty that God Created the Universe - which I have no doubt is the case, based entirely on faith - then I would point out that God exists in a state of being which is outside logic, reason, and sense. God being immaterial, illogical, and unscientific, needs not follow logical systems.

In other words, Deity's state of existence is such that physical laws, constants, and logical reasoning have no meaning - the idea that God exists OUTSIDE of time, space, dimension - Outside of Logic.

However, this further implies that no experience WITHIN time, space, dimension, or logic can detect or infer God properly.

At least, that's MY theory - YMMV.

The only reason I argue with you, Iacchus, is that you try semantic games and logical juggling to invoke God as Creator, and imbue intelligent design to the Universe. In my humble opinion, God lacks the sort of intelligence you and I are aware of, and made the Universe quite incidentally, quite accidentally perhaps, with no design or intent involved. God may even be an idiot savant - or worse, some sort of hyper-animal, driven by instinct alone. Who can say? But trying to use logic, reasoning, and semantic games to convince others of the existence of God offends my sensibilities, so I stand against you in this.

That, and your arguments are awfully immature.

 

[Cleopatra]

Nonsense!!!

I am not sure if I must report that under the new rules but instead I am asking you to control yourself, Iacchus. If you don't wish to address other people's posts just ignore them or declare that you don't wish to discuss with them. Don't admonish posters for spending time in replying to your posts please.

 

[Iacchus]

I am not sure if I must report that under the new rules but instead I am asking you to control yourself, Iacchus. If you don't wish to address other people's posts just ignore them or declare that you don't wish to discuss with them. Don't admonish posters for spending time in replying to your posts please.

Jeeze, and where have you been lately? Did you know that this guy has continued to "admonish" me about how my posts are so full nonsense for the past ten or twelve posts now? And then for me to finally come right out and say that he was full of nonsense makes me the bad guy? No.

You see the problem is that I don't agree with him, and probably never will ... Unless of course he agrees with me first. Ha ha ha!

 

[BillHoyt]

Nonsense!!!

Stating foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant. Shouting foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant and boorish.

Please address my points.

 

[Iacchus]

What if the ground rules are causal but random? Say that the gradient which creates the electromagnetic force is like a slop of sand that slides, the angle of the slope could be very arbitrary, it could be shallow or it could be steep.

Yes, and which rules would allow this to do so? There still has to be something definitive there in order to determine this.

In Alan Guth or string theory they talk about how the potential forces of the nascent universe may have been changing rapidily and just happened to freeze at the moment of creation. therefore the 'constants' we have might have been slightly different, speculatively, and therefore mutable.

Even so, what rules would allow that to happen?

Give me any scenario for creation and I can come up with an acausal or random version where creation was unintended.

Did you know that everything tends to lay where it falls? And if you don't disturb it, it tends to stay that way? So what does that have to do with anything occurring at random? In other words how can you break the mold once it's set? And once set, what's it got to do with anything occurring at random?

They are causal but not deterministic, given a knowledge of all the forces and positions, you still can not be predicting the outcome, isn't that cool. The patterns arise from chaos but are not determined they are contingent.

Not so.

Mere assertion, for all we know the forces of nature could be randomly fluctuating, as long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other.

Oh, so long as they fluctuate in proportion to each other? Hmm ... Could that mean there's yet another set of rules involved here?

Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.

Are you saying evolution doesn't follow the course which is set by the rules?

Yes and the flower arise from the contingent development of evolution and the forces surrounding the flower. Rewind the tape and start over and that flower might be very different, therefore contingent and random in design.

It still follows the design which allows it to do so

 

[Iacchus]

Stating foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant. Shouting foolish arguments makes you appear ignorant and boorish.

Is this supposed to mean something?

Please address my points.

I just did.

 

[Maledict]

Is this supposed to mean something?

Yes - it means you're fool.

I just did.

You never did - all you did was shout "Nonsense" in bold red text in response to the following passage from BillHoyt.

More red herrings. Your fishmonger must have a large yacht by now, on your tab alone. Will you please address the infinite regression? Why does your design reasoning not equally apply to god? Why is it his existence doesn't also require a designer?

Do you claim your god is a simpleton? Not complex? Or less complex than the universe he created? How can that be? Is he less complex than the simplest part of this universe? If not, then how is that punily complex part requires a designer, but this more compex god does not?

Your foolish logic demands the conclusion that god gotta daddy.

Please, since you claim to have "addressed" his points - please show us where.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes - it means you're fool.

Ad hominem.

 

[Maledict]

Ad hominem.

Based on good evidence - you state foolish arguments, refuse to debate and you refuse to address points, like here, here, here or here - and even in this thread. Yes, you are a fool.

Nice going on ignoring the other half of my post containing the passage from BillHoyt that you continue to ignore and assert that you have "addressed" his points even though you have not done so - you are so predictable.

 

[Iacchus]

Or, perhaps Billy Boy didn't start out on a the right footing here. For example these are from his first six or seven posts ... And, while there's a gap between some of the posts, because they don't all include ad hominems, I can assure you they were more than condescending enough to make up for it. I really got the impression that he thought I was stupid or something?


Ad hominem

Don't wade out to the deep end of the kiddie pool without your swimmies on.

Ad hominem

Wow. Your imagination is so impoverished you can't think of circumstances in which pulling the trigger is right?

Ad hominem

You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions.

Ad hominem

Paucity of imagination is a god-given talent? Right.

Ad hominem

But again you show a paucity of imagination. Why not simply conclude this god has an inferiority problem and wants to make sure he's the biggest d**k around?

By the way, did you notice whether I had any difficulty replying to Dancing David above?