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.
Now you sound like a creationist. Why did I know you were going to say that.
Quote:
The ONLY scientific part of that statement is the red portion. You assert an unnecessary adjective "outside" that has no relevance . . . and you cannot establish the bolded portion using scientific evidence. In fact . . the opposite is clearly evident. A completely meaningless and non-scientific statement. Random means "we don't have any idea . . . we are ignorant" and "natural selection" means by God's selection using His mandate of survival . . . "be fruitful and multiply."
Your claims of life having purpose are refuted by the universe's hostility towards the existence of life.
Quote:
An asteroid is part and parcel of God's design . . . everything is.
You can answer any question with "God did it." It doesn't get you anywhere. Santa Clause is still a better story. If you're going to continue to pander your bull**** and claim that it isn't anything like other mythical stories to explain the unexplained, don't pull **** like "God did it" whenever natural means are presented. You know damn well what natural is and what is not, so don't bother with the word games.
Quote:
You are bitching about the method of guidance . . . not that it doesn't exist.
No. Guidance would suggest an end result. Life continues to evolve, and not the same way twice--there isn't any end result nor defined path. That is the distinct lack of guidance.
Quote:
How did you determine this scientifically . . . the "without any intelligent order" part?
The universe is trying to kill you.
Quote:
How were the unintelligent processes identified from what would be intelligent ones?
Intelligence for our means requires intent and purpose, neither of which is clearly evident and argued clearly not intent or purposed.
Quote:
Why is it any less purposed than an asteroid truncating and restarting evolution? How did you scientifically determine this lack of purpose?
The universe is trying to kill you. That single handily shuts down any argument about life being special. The universe is not designed for life.
Quote:
Again . . . how was all this scientifically established? What observations could possibly show no design, no specialness, or no purpose?
Pretty much every argument I just made refutes design, purpose, and specialness. You're special when there isn't an end product. You're not special when the universe is so hostile to life.
Your arguments for purpose, design, specialness, etc. depend on God's existence being a priori, which it isn't.
Quote:
You only believe all that you have said so far. There is no scientific basis for any of your characterizations of the science. You have merely indulged your penchant for ascribing scientific merit to our ignorance and inability to discern. In fact . . . you use our ignorance so frequently to support your view . . . it begins to resemble the fundamentalists.
Uh huh.
Quote:
You are getting yourself confused about the arguments now. Existence is evidence of a Creator.
No. Existence is evidence of--existence. Creation is evidence of a creator--you haven't provided sufficient reasoning or evidence to suggest that we are a creation--and your hypocrisy in another thread about God not needing a creator shows just how pedantic your arguments really are.
Quote:
The processes (laws, constants, DNA, RNA, Survival, repeatability, etc.) that enable science and the evidence produced by it indicate an intelligence to what is created.
Intelligible does not mean intelligent, especially considering any number of various possibilities for existence that don't involve intelligent creation beings.
Quote:
More groundless assertion . . . there is nothing "clearly" about your assertion of purposelessness . . . and nothing scientific about it either.
Purpose is a philosophical question. Backing my point with science is a convenience--you've backed yours up with "God did it."
Quote:
Nature and God are indistinguishable
THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE CONCEPTS WITH TWO SEPARATE DEFINITIONS.
Quote:
because it is an artificial distinction to assuage scientists' angst about religious persecution. You can almost hear the screams . . ."Never again! Never Again!"
Conspiracy Theory! Baseless claim. The etymology of the word "nature" doesn't invoke God--it's definition and concept is entirely separate from that of God. Your refusal to acknowledge that makes you an asshat.
Now you sound like a creationist. Why did I know you were going to say that.
You keep trying to paint me with that brush because they are easier to refute. Sorry . . . but you do not get to use YOUR Creator ("Nature") AS IF it is a scientific one and reject mine which for our purposes in this discussion is EXACTLY the same one with EXACTLY the same evidence and support. Trying to muddle the philsophical discussion with existing BS, absurdities, and unsupported speculations and beliefs is disingenuous and hypocritical. My Creator is your Creator and vice versa. You don't get to name Him as the default because you don't like mine (or the other more dangerous versions).
Quote:
Your claims of life having purpose are refuted by the universe's hostility towards the existence of life.
You ASSume that this physical "factory" existence is the purpose of life instead of the consciousnesses that life produces . . . (which does not end because the "factory" stops producing) . . . illogical.
Quote:
You can answer any question with "God did it." It doesn't get you anywhere. Santa Clause is still a better story. If you're going to continue to pander your bull**** and claim that it isn't anything like other mythical stories to explain the unexplained, don't pull **** like "God did it" whenever natural means are presented. You know damn well what natural is and what is not, so don't bother with the word games.
Yes, i do know . . . but you dissemble. YOU keep adding in all the mythical BS and distractions."Nature" is God and God is "Nature" . . . and "natural" is by God's design. You have no scientific basis for distinguishing them.
Quote:
No. Guidance would suggest an end result. Life continues to evolve, and not the same way twice--there isn't any end result nor defined path. That is the distinct lack of guidance.
There you go again . . . relying on our ignorance and inability to discern! God is not dismissible because we are ignorant.
Quote:
The universe is trying to kill you.
That is your concrete assessment thinking about our physical factory. I have already produced ME . . . the remodeling and repairing of my "consciousness" is the only thing that can be ended by my death. What already is remains. TV series on broadcast TV don't end because the series is canceled. Some ET's out there might be enjoying "I Love Lucy" for all we know.
Quote:
Intelligence for our means requires intent and purpose, neither of which is clearly evident and argued clearly not intent or purposed.
Again . . . our ignorance and inability to discern does NOT constitute scientific proof! Intelligent means intelligent (as contrasted with completely unintelligible) . . . NOT your proscribed and delimited versions that fit your preferred views.
Quote:
The universe is trying to kill you.
See above.
Quote:
That single handily shuts down any argument about life being special. The universe is not designed for life.
See Tegmark and other leading astrophysicists for a refutation of this assertion.
Quote:
Pretty much every argument I just made refutes design, purpose, and specialness. You're special when there isn't an end product. You're not special when the universe is so hostile to life.
Every ASSertion you have made is completely devoid of scientific support.
Quote:
Your arguments for purpose, design, specialness, etc. depend on God's existence being a priori, which it isn't.
Quote:
You only believe all that you have said so far. There is no scientific basis for any of your characterizations of the science. You have merely indulged your penchant for ascribing scientific merit to our ignorance and inability to discern. In fact . . . you use our ignorance so frequently to support your view . . . it begins to resemble the fundamentalists.
Uh huh.
Very articulate and intelligent.
Quote:
No. Existence is evidence of--existence. Creation is evidence of a creator--you haven't provided sufficient reasoning or evidence to suggest that we are a creation--and your hypocrisy in another thread about God not needing a creator shows just how pedantic your arguments really are.
You supply a Creator ("Nature") and then try to disclaim any need for one by pretending yours is scientific . . . which just shows how disingenuous and hypocritical your views are.
Quote:
Intelligible does not mean intelligent, especially considering any number of various possibilities for existence that don't involve intelligent creation beings.
Diversity of beliefs has NO relevance to what IS. Everything that exists has to be accounted for because creation is irrefutable . . our ignorance is not a scientific reason for rejection.
Quote:
Purpose is a philosophical question. Backing my point with science is a convenience--you've backed yours up with "God did it."
Repeating your mischaracterizations does nothing to validate them. This IS a philosophical discussion . . . something you seem to have difficulty with.
Quote:
THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE CONCEPTS WITH TWO SEPARATE DEFINITIONS.
NO they are not . . . and you have no scientific basis for asserting it.
Quote:
Conspiracy Theory! Baseless claim. The etymology of the word "nature" doesn't invoke God--it's definition and concept is entirely separate from that of God. Your refusal to acknowledge that makes you an asshat.
Your refusal to acknowledge that the progenitors of your vaunted science were NOT investigating "Nature" . . . they were investigating God and His creation. It was the religious bigotry and tyranny that necessitated a complete break. It was mutual . . . as the religious morons refused to acknowledge the contradictions of science . . so they created the "supernatural" rationale and the scientists created "Nature." There is NO relevant distinction . . only in the disputable attributes beyond what is verifiable.
If you had any truth on your side you would not need to continuously try to denigrate me by association with extremist nutjobs and morons . . . instead of addressing my views on their merits.
You keep trying to paint me with that brush because they are easier to refute.
Don't use those arguments then.
Quote:
Sorry . . . but you do not get to use YOUR Creator ("Nature") AS IF it is a scientific one and reject mine which for our purposes in this discussion is EXACTLY the same one with EXACTLY the same evidence and support.
And you run into the FSM problem. FSM created Yahweh which created us, therefore FSM is the creator of all things. I win.
[qupte]Trying to muddle the philsophical discussion with existing BS, absurdities, and unsupported speculations and beliefs is disingenuous and hypocritical.[/quote]
Oh the irony.
Quote:
My Creator is your Creator and vice versa. You don't get to name Him as the default because you don't like mine (or the other more dangerous versions).
Your claim that the process by which we've come about is an intelligent creating force with purpose for life, especially human life, is unfounded considering the observations we've made as a human species about life.
Your insistence on a source is a 1.God of the Gaps argument and 2. hypocritical because you reject the, as you say "Turtles all the way down BS," but demand that existence is somehow the creation of a creator itself without a creator. The argument for eternal existence of your "creator" is likewise applied to the eternal existence of matter and energy.
The simple existence of matter and energy does not require an intelligent guide nor purpose. Your assertions otherwise are unfounded.
Quote:
You ASSume
Ad Hom.
Quote:
that this physical "factory" existence
Scary quotes--define what physical "factory" existence is.
Quote:
is the purpose of life instead of the consciousnesses that life produces . . . (which does not end because the "factory" stops producing) . . . illogical.
You're entire statement is fragmented and incoherent. Clean it up.
Quote:
Yes, i do know . . . but you dissemble. YOU keep adding in all the mythical BS and distractions."Nature" is God and God is "Nature" . . . and "natural" is by God's design. You have no scientific basis for distinguishing them.
Different concepts. That isn't me changing around definitions, that's you.
We can keep going in circles if you want. God and Nature are separate concepts with separate definitions. If life appears to be without purpose (which it does) and without design (which it does) and without any intelligent guiding hand (which it does), than it's reasonable to postulate that neither of these are part of our existence.
I.E. Nature--not God.
Quote:
There you go again . . . relying on our ignorance and inability to discern! God is not dismissible because we are ignorant.
Evolution is an ongoing process--how could you possibly claim that humans and consciousness are an end result? Who's ignorance is making the argument that it is?
Quote:
That is your concrete assessment thinking about our physical factory. I have already produced ME . . . the remodeling and repairing of my "consciousness" is the only thing that can be ended by my death. What already is remains. TV series on broadcast TV don't end because the series is canceled. Some ET's out there might be enjoying "I Love Lucy" for all we know.
What does any of that have to do with the universe trying to kill you? Just about everything out there in space, and many many things here on Earth are capable of killing you without your knowledge. The universe is hostile to human life and life itself.
Quote:
Again . . . our ignorance and inability to discern does NOT constitute scientific proof!
Your inability to provide evidence of intelligence guiding life means your claim is rejected. Claims that life was intelligently designed is refuted by how poor our bodies actually function, by processes that function with random chance, with the fact that the universe is capable of wiping our all life.
Any more God of the Gaps arguments you'd like to throw in about the dinosaurs being killed by asteroids?
Quote:
Intelligent means intelligent (as contrasted with completely unintelligible) . . . NOT your proscribed and delimited versions that fit your preferred views.
Intelligible makes something predictable. I don't see the rational outside of tautology that makes it intelligent.
Quote:
See above. See Tegmark and other leading astrophysicists for a refutation of this assertion.
Life can exist in our universe--but I wouldn't say that it was built for it--especially considering that everything can kill life easily. The fact that life can exist in a puddle of acid doesn't at all suggest that the puddle of acid was made for life.
Quote:
Every ASSertion
Ad Hom.
Quote:
you have made is completely devoid of scientific support.
And your assertion is that we are created? Mine stands on far more evidence than yours.
Quote:
Very articulate and intelligent.
Your assertion that God exists by definition is absurd. Don't blame me for not carrying.
You supply a Creator ("Nature") and then try to disclaim any need for one by pretending yours is scientific . . .[/quote]
I'm not speaking of "we" as in life, but "we" as in existence of our universe. You haven't provided evidence or reasoning to suggest that our universe is a creation.
Quote:
which just shows how disingenuous and hypocritical your views are. Diversity of beliefs has NO relevance to what IS. Everything that exists has to be accounted for because creation is irrefutable . . our ignorance is not a scientific reason for rejection.
Clearly it is when you haven't provided reason or evidence to suggest that we're created. (Universe we--not human life we). The only thing that is irrefutable is existence. You're making a logical leap from existence to creation.
Quote:
Repeating your mischaracterizations does nothing to validate them. This IS a philosophical discussion . . . something you seem to have difficulty with.
If this is a philosophical discussion, why are you demanding empirically verified evidence for purpose--a philosophical question?
Quote:
NO they are not . . . and you have no scientific basis for asserting it.
Let's play this game differently. You give me a way to measure how evolution is a 1. guided, 2. intelligent 3. purposed process.
Quote:
Your refusal to acknowledge that the progenitors of your vaunted science were NOT investigating "Nature" . . . they were investigating God and His creation. It was the religious bigotry and tyranny that necessitated a complete break. It was mutual . . . as the religious morons refused to acknowledge the contradictions of science . . so they created the "supernatural" rationale and the scientists created "Nature." There is NO relevant distinction . . only in the disputable attributes beyond what is verifiable.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Perhaps it defines two entirely separate concepts, and you're too much of a ****wit to accept that because you demand everyone bow to your 20 years of meaningless meditation and 70 years of spins around the sun. Not going to happen.
I don't but you and your ilk take every opportunity to associate me with them. When you need to misrepresent (lie) to defend your position you have already lost.
Quote:
And you run into the FSM problem. FSM created Yahweh which created us, therefore FSM is the creator of all things. I win.
More of your imaginary BS . . . when you know we are talking about a reality that you clearly accept ("Nature") . . so stop the dodging and games. Justify your version of God over mine with something more than assertions without back-up . . . the evidence for both is identical . . . so the existence of God is indisputable. Your lame excuse trying to rely on definitions in common parlance are irrelevant to philosophical debates about essential reality . . . sophomoric fail.
Quote:
Quote:
Trying to muddle the philsophical discussion with existing BS, absurdities, and unsupported speculations and beliefs is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Oh the irony.
The irony is that you do not see that it is you who repeatedly brings these things up and charges me with them . . . when I have disavowed them repeatedly.
Quote:
Your claim that the process by which we've come about is an intelligent creating force with purpose for life, especially human life, is unfounded considering the observations we've made as a human species about life.
You keep resorting to the unessential attributes that are disputable (like your unintelligent, purposeless, mindless, undirected and unguided attributes). NEITHER of us has scientifc basis for them . . . but I have a personal experiential basis and a solid hypothesis based on existing phenomena and theory. You have nothing but your assertions.
Quote:
Your insistence on a source is a 1.God of the Gaps argument and 2. hypocritical because you reject the, as you say "Turtles all the way down BS," but demand that existence is somehow the creation of a creator itself without a creator. The argument for eternal existence of your "creator" is likewise applied to the eternal existence of matter and energy. The simple existence of matter and energy does not require an intelligent guide nor purpose. Your assertions otherwise are unfounded.
ALL knowledge on the frontier of existing knowledge is "Gap" . . that is what hypotheses address. You have NONE . . . I have a plausible one that is consistent with existing knowledge. You have no basis to suggest that no creation exists . . since pure energy and matter show no evidence of LIFE . . . so creation is indisputable. That makes it plausible as well for the clear and present evidence of existence itself.
Quote:
Scary quotes--define what physical "factory" existence is.
You're entire statement is fragmented and incoherent. Clean it up.
Feigned ignorance or reading comprehension problem?Our body and brain are merely the "factory" (combustibles) that produce our consciousness ("flames of Self") . . . or to relate it to TV . . our brain is a "transceiver" that produces (transmits and receives) consciousness energy in the form of "Self." Once it has been produced it cannot be "un-produced."
Quote:
Different concepts. That isn't me changing around definitions, that's you. define: nature - Google Search define: God - Google Search
We can keep going in circles if you want. God and Nature are separate concepts with separate definitions.
More sophomoric "definition" BS having no relevance to defending any distinctions on other than semantic grounds.
Quote:
If life appears to be without purpose (which it does) and without design (which it does) and without any intelligent guiding hand (which it does), than it's reasonable to postulate that neither of these are part of our existence.
More repeated assertions without any scientific support for your characterizations. Our inability to discern any of those things cannot be the basis for their dismissal . . that is an appeal to ignorance and will always fail. I.E. Nature = God . . God= Nature.
Quote:
Evolution is an ongoing process--how could you possibly claim that humans and consciousness are an end result? Who's ignorance is making the argument that it is?
The existing evidence to date places our consciousness and creativity (Godly attributes) on top of the heap existentially. You have to speculate that there will be more . . . I don't.
Quote:
What does any of that have to do with the universe trying to kill you? Just about everything out there in space, and many many things here on Earth are capable of killing you without your knowledge. The universe is hostile to human life and life itself.
Your inability to provide evidence of intelligence guiding life means your claim is rejected. Claims that life was intelligently designed is refuted by how poor our bodies actually function, by processes that function with random chance, with the fact that the universe is capable of wiping our all life.
Survival of the human body and brain is not the concern . . . nor are our physical capabilities. It is the production of consciousness that is the purpose. That has given US the capability to wipe out all life.
Quote:
Any more God of the Gaps arguments you'd like to throw in about the dinosaurs being killed by asteroids?
Your "God of the Gaps" foil has been effectively neutralized by the existence of my hypothesis and synthesis which is how we address ALL such "Gaps" in knowledge. So give it a rest.
Quote:
Intelligible makes something predictable. I don't see the rational outside of tautology that makes it intelligent.
Perhaps you will enlighten me with an explanation of how it can be predictable, then?
Quote:
Life can exist in our universe--but I wouldn't say that it was built for it--especially considering that everything can kill life easily. The fact that life can exist in a puddle of acid doesn't at all suggest that the puddle of acid was made for life.
You are in direct conflict with most quantum physicists.
Quote:
And your assertion is that we are created? Mine stands on far more evidence than yours.
Yours stands on NO evidence and all the evidence points to my hypothesis. You don't even have an alternative hypothesis consistent with scientific knowledge.
Quote:
Your assertion that God exists by definition is absurd. Don't blame me for not carrying.
You definitely must be getting confused . . you keep misattributing things. YOU are the one focused on definitions, Konraden . . . Not I.
Quote:
Quote:
You supply a Creator ("Nature") and then try to disclaim any need for one by pretending yours is scientific . . .
I'm not speaking of "we" as in life, but "we" as in existence of our universe. You haven't provided evidence or reasoning to suggest that our universe is a creation.
Clearly it is when you haven't provided reason or evidence to suggest that we're created. (Universe we--not human life we). The only thing that is irrefutable is existence. You're making a logical leap from existence to creation.
I have evidence of creation (life, us) . . . you have no alternative. I have a basis in existing knowledge to assert creation . . . you do not have a basis in existing knowledge to deny it. QED
Quote:
If this is a philosophical discussion, why are you demanding empirically verified evidence for purpose--a philosophical question?
I am NOT . . . you keep asking for it. I merely assert that it must exist and I have MY version of what it is.
Quote:
Let's play this game differently. You give me a way to measure how evolution is a 1. guided, 2. intelligent 3. purposed process.
Never abandon a winning strategy . . . especially one the loser suggests.
Quote:
Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
YOU attach conspiracy to it. I merely assert the historical record of it.
Quote:
Perhaps it defines two entirely separate concepts, and you're too much of a ****wit to accept that because you demand everyone bow to your 20 years of meaningless meditation and 70 years of spins around the sun. Not going to happen.
I demand nothing . . . I merely point out what you cannot dispute . . . and admit my personal experiential evidence applies only to ME. You are the one being defensive because your "God of the Gaps", "imaginary friend," "supernatural," "definitional," and assorted other favorite foils have been decimated and you have no replacement BS to fight with.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-17-2010 at 10:14 PM..
**** it, I just spent 45 minutes going through point by point of your argument. I don't care.
I'm sorry, Konraden . . . I found the discussion stimulating and challenging.
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.
