Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You make some good points, but how confident are you in this belief and what causes you to believe it?
Good points is what caused him to think it. Then he had to decide to believe it or not. Some of these posts here seem to have no points but depend totally upon the knuckle power of their words. Good points are worth considering for what you can believe or not believe...oh sorry...I was going for coffee...should I fetch two?
Most of these rivers in India like Braham river and Saraisvati river and Ghaggar tributary sound like Abraham ,Sara and Hagar of the bible who were popular as they had wisdom of hearing from God , so the India belief borrowed their names...
Wrong! The Abrahamic faith borrowed all this from the Hindu faith. The very fact that Abraham is said to come from the far east region of UR of Chaldea which is closer to India than Israel should tip you off. These religious beliefs migrated west, not east.
I just asked a few questions.
One good clear glass of cool water - I trade for what? A glass full of cloudy murky and whats that word for troubled waters? tur...turbl...turblent...no, not that one either...of what is it that you say?
If I undertand your murky analogy correctly, there is an old saying: "Comfortable lies or Uncomfortable truths?"
One might alo say that simple and easily comprehended answers are in fact often less true that complicated, confusing and sometimes unsettling facts that are nevertheless true.
No, you're not understanding what I asked you. Go to your drawing table and show me on paper the intelligent design of a car. The "Plan." Yes, you can do that. And since you asked me what a solar system without intelligent design would look like, I asked you to show what a car without intelligent design would look. That's all I asked of you. But the point is, you can't show me a car without intelligent design. But you could show me a solar system with intelligent design and put it on paper. You just refuse to do so. Why? because your working intelligent design that you can show me implies something you don't like. It exists, it works, and it will by far keep on working long beyond any conversation that we may have here. It contains a greater intelligence than you can comprehend. You could study and copy it to create another solar system some where else, maybe. But that intelligence did not originate from you, you did not create it ,yet, you being intelligence should recognize the intelligence in the "Plan" that you devised from the car or the solar system. Put it on paper and look at it. Show me an intelligent design of a solar system that could actually exist and work, I'm headed to Jupiter tomorrow and I need a working plan for a solar system in case I can't return and have to make my own somehow. What do I need to know? And I really don't have the time to just wait for one to magically just pop up out of nothing doing nothing out of nowhere.
And your statement: "Nor do we have other known designed universes to compare ours with"
We were only talking about intelligent designed solar systems, but what does " ...other designed universes to compare with ours," suggest to the reader. A known designed universe. Isn't that contrary to your own argument? a creation without any creator, a design without any designer, just random pop pop and mindless bang bang with no ability to to know any difference of anything? Unable to even roll the dice.
I don't see any reason to beat this horse to death. Take what you want and discard what you don't. Your beaver dam analogy has holes in it. I don't see any problem in telling if a tree was downed by a beaver or a chainsaw or just wind damage. I can tell a pile of logs from a beaver dam well enough already.
I'll be come back after coffee and ask you a question of sorts, not to argue or fight, but to have a little fun. All we are really doing here is sharing our thinking, our thoughts. Let the readers decide for themselves whichever suits them best. I'm sure they are able to decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't...that is, if we don't tumble ourselves in our own words.
Good mental exercise is the way to reason, not bare knuckles. I enjoyed writing this, it was fun. And who have I harmed?
I'm not quite sure what the intent is here and it doesn't matter. Where I think is the problem or perhaps the answer to the querstion is the flaw in the watchmaker argument.
You see, we can distinguish natural from designed. If you asked me to design a natural car, I could do so. Don't ask me because the result is a bit sickening.
If you asked me to describe an intelligently designed cosmos, - and let's say Intelligently designed to produce Humans - why, it would be as described in Genesis. You wouldn't NEED a universe. You'd only need God and a snow dome with laboratory - ant humans inside. And not a fossil in sight.
I detect also the confusion between what we are educated to recognize as artificial and what is Obviously artificial. This becomes an error when we look at Beehive cells, the chambers of an ammonite, or the spiral of galaxy and say 'That looks designed'. The natural explanations show they do not have to be, and that is why the appeal to commonsense evaluation is a very, very untrustworthy. And we have to keep flogging that horse every time it is trotted out, or rather, not flog it, but pointing out that it's been flogged to death already.
And I have have to flog the analogy to death too.
"There you are - my pony wins".
"But it's dead."
"No, no, it's just sleeping."
"Sleeping is it? (kicks it a few times) That's a dead pony if I ever saw one."
"No, no, you stunned it just now.."
""It's not stunned, it's dead."
"Prove to me that it's dead..if you can't prove to me that it's dead...it isn't dead..."
The object of the argument is never to admit defeat - then you can claim you won.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2017 at 11:10 AM..
Okay, then perhaps the universe isn't best described as a creation, but you appear to be going off on a tangent a bit. The fact is, the universe doesn't necessarily have an intelligent creator.
Step back from the Creator/No Creator dichotomy. Life continuously creates but is not a Creator. The universe/multiverse continuously creates but is not a Creator. Your body continuously creates cells but you are not their Creator. Not every cell of your body is part of your intelligence, but you ARE intelligent. Why must everything in the universe/multiverse be part of intelligence for the universe/multiverse to BE intelligent? There is a composition fallacy used to argue against this that is based on a belief in "separate things" but if everything is part of "ONE thing," God, that fallacy does not apply.
Mystic you have already had this argument debunked. You avoid the implied question of Why must everything in the universe/multiverse be part of intelligence for the universe/multiverse to BE intelligent? Why? Because that's what you want to believe. What's the argument for that? I don't recall I ever heard one from you other than 'It's Obvious'.
The fallacy you speak of, whether it is or is not false is irrelevant, because it is obvious that everything is all part of One thing. The universe of nature and natural physical laws. Why it has to be Something More implied in the leading question "What IS it?" has never been stated any more than you set out the unexplained 'Why" here. And any explanatory mechanisms -even if supported by the fossil evidence of the emergence of life and consciousness and from inert matter as like as not, is simply dismissed with no valid argument that I can recall.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2017 at 02:27 PM..
Step back from the Creator/No Creator dichotomy. Life continuously creates but is not a Creator. The universe/multiverse continuously creates but is not a Creator. Your body continuously creates cells but you are not their Creator. Not every cell of your body is part of your intelligence, but you ARE intelligent. Why must everything in the universe/multiverse be part of intelligence for the universe/multiverse to BE intelligent? There is a composition fallacy used to argue against this that is based on a belief in "separate things" but if everything is part of "ONE thing," God, that fallacy does not apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Mystic you have already had this argument debunked.
No matter how many times you repeat this lie it will not automatically become true. I notice the MSM uses that same approach. Tell a lie consistently enough, long enough and ubiquitously enough and it will eventually be believed. Saul Alinsky's theory.
Quote:
You avoid the implied question of Why must everything in the universe/multiverse be part of intelligence for the universe/multiverse to BE intelligent? Why? Because that's what you want to believe. What's the argument for that? I don't recall I ever heard one from you other than 'It's Obvious'.
How can you be intelligent when everything that comprises your body is NOT intelligent? How can such unintelligent properties as up quarks and down quarks acquire the property of THINKING???
I have proven (using science, using philosophy, using other means over the years) that there is indeed a Creator. I have done it repeatedly, without results. They say repeatedly "that's not proof" whenever I try. In other words, the proof is ridiculously easy to see.
Creation cannot exist without a Creator. It is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise has taken leave of logic. Taking leave of logic is neither sane nor scientific, as science requires logical and repeatable methodology. I can take any object, whether natural or manmade, and show the steps it to be made.
"You are an idiot" is not a disproof. Neither is "God does not exist, and you have no proof." Here's what I do know. God, if we are to call this God as God, is the God of not only primative Jewish people, but the God of nature and the universe. This is the difference from the gods of the Romans and early cultures, and modern religions. Those religions broke a god into "this thing our people believe in, and build statues to that controls X phenomenon." This is what is called a tribal deity. A God however, is something that is immortal, and is the source of mortal things. That is, everything that is, came from something. Except a God. A strict nihilistic non-creation existence makes no sense, unless we believe the Universe is eternal. And if that is the case, the Universe is God (pantheism).
What does it mean to be made in the image of God? It means, not just humans, but everything that exists, has the imprint of God in it. Jesus at one point said "everyone who has seen me has seen the father." Whether you are looking at rocks, trees, whatever, every single thing is a proof there is a God. You cannot escape this, any more than you can escape the Buddha's Hand. You're welcome to try, though.
1) Creation must have a creator
So, this makes sense internally. If something is a creation, it must have been created, otherwise it wouldn't be a creation, therefore must have a creator. That all works. The problem here is that you're calling the universe a "creation" long before proving it was created or had a creator. In essense, you're simply renaming it to prove a point scientifically, without doing any of the actual proving.
2) God is the universe
It's fine to believe God is the universe. And indeed, simply saying "there's no proof" does nothing as believe isn't a proof based thing. Nor should it have to be. But this is a similar issue to the last one where you call the universe a creation before proving that it is; you're just saying God means universe, without doing anything to justify it besides saying it.
3) The image of God
This is pretty much the same issue. In fact, with all of these, you're just playing with semantics.
This all boils down to this: God is mostly like not provable, rather he/she/it exists or not. Choose to believe or don't, but do not ask others for proof. This allows others to ask you for proof in return, and unfortunately, in the mind of science, something needs proof to be scientifically valid, and simply saying an evidence of absence is not disproving it, which is true, basically just leaves it as an unproven thing entirely. In short, nothing is gained in an argument about proofs in the issue of God or spirituality.
No matter how many times you repeat this lie it will not automatically become true. I notice the MSM uses that same approach. Tell a lie consistently enough, long enough and ubiquitously enough and it will eventually be believed. Saul Alinsky's theory. How can you be intelligent when everything that comprises your body is NOT intelligent? How can such unintelligent properties as up quarks and down quarks acquire the property of THINKING???
Projection old mate. If you keep claiming you haven't been debunked, I am lying and you proclaim you own Faith based opinions backed up by - well nothing much, you hope people will believe it.
Well, I listed the debunks elsewhere and showed which of us is telling the truth.
I even mention the emergence of consciousness from virtually none just as we get higher mammals from protoplasmic blobs. This is evidence we see before our eyes, and you ignore it, even when it is pointed out.
You really are no better than the Creationists who deny the evolution of life and insist it was done all in one go, when you ignore the evidence of the gradual development of animal consciousness and insist it was somehow Just There.
The Dusty susses you too. You assume as a given what you are going all out to prove. Your argument only even makes bad sense if you assume a God to start off with.
You are buggered from the start by faith in this God -faith of yours. I won't even touch on the revelation that you seem to think the only one getting reliable messages from Him is you - just as every other god -believer seems to think - which is why they keep beating each other up while we goddless bastards gather up the teeth...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2017 at 04:25 PM..
No, you're not understanding what I asked you. Go to your drawing table and show me on paper the intelligent design of a car. The "Plan." Yes, you can do that. And since you asked me what a solar system without intelligent design would look like, I asked you to show what a car without intelligent design would look. That's all I asked of you. But the point is, you can't show me a car without intelligent design. But you could show me a solar system with intelligent design and put it on paper. You just refuse to do so. Why? because your working intelligent design that you can show me implies something you don't like. It exists, it works, and it will by far keep on working long beyond any conversation that we may have here. It contains a greater intelligence than you can comprehend. You could study and copy it to create another solar system some where else, maybe. But that intelligence did not originate from you, you did not create it ,yet, you being intelligence should recognize the intelligence in the "Plan" that you devised from the car or the solar system. Put it on paper and look at it. Show me an intelligent design of a solar system that could actually exist and work, I'm headed to Jupiter tomorrow and I need a working plan for a solar system in case I can't return and have to make my own somehow. What do I need to know? And I really don't have the time to just wait for one to magically just pop up out of nothing doing nothing out of nowhere.
And your statement: "Nor do we have other known designed universes to compare ours with"
We were only talking about intelligent designed solar systems, but what does " ...other designed universes to compare with ours," suggest to the reader. A known designed universe. Isn't that contrary to your own argument? a creation without any creator, a design without any designer, just random pop pop and mindless bang bang with no ability to to know any difference of anything? Unable to even roll the dice.
I don't see any reason to beat this horse to death. Take what you want and discard what you don't. Your beaver dam analogy has holes in it. I don't see any problem in telling if a tree was downed by a beaver or a chainsaw or just wind damage. I can tell a pile of logs from a beaver dam well enough already.
I'll be come back after coffee and ask you a question of sorts, not to argue or fight, but to have a little fun. All we are really doing here is sharing our thinking, our thoughts. Let the readers decide for themselves whichever suits them best. I'm sure they are able to decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't...that is, if we don't tumble ourselves in our own words.
Good mental exercise is the way to reason, not bare knuckles. I enjoyed writing this, it was fun. And who have I harmed?
As the beaver analogy requires you to have knowledge of how beavers cut down trees to recognize the dam as being designed, one must have knowledge of how solar systems, universes, cosmos, or whatever, to recognize them as being designed. We know how solar systems naturally come into existence, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in addressing the universe/cosmos, for which we have no knowledge of how they ultimately came into existence.
I don't consider this as redundant. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
