Faith without any reason vs Faith without any evidence (created, atheists, explanation)
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.
"design" is the key word. I am not derailing as much as i redirecting away from two positions, counter claims if you will, that really have no observational support. That being "a thing made us" and "the universe did not design us."
"hemostasis". Its a word that describes what we are seeing and the fact that we so many constants falling out of observations. I don't know of a better descriptor. I applied oscars shaver to it a million times.
You don't design you blood cells but the simple fact is that your living did create them. I say the same thing for what we see on earth. There is no omni thingie. Yeah, religion can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean I have to change the most reasonable conclusions that fit what we see better than any other notion. That notion is homeostasis.
I haven't heard one counter argument by atheist that would lead me to denying it is more rational.
This is right. 'design' is the key term. The difference is natural design (evolution) and intelligent design (an intelligent creator). Intelligent design is seen as one of the best arguments for a god, but the intelligent design claim is flawed. Order and complexity do not have to be planned by an intelligence - they can evolve.
This is right. 'design' is the key term. The difference is natural design (evolution) and intelligent design (an intelligent creator). Intelligent design is seen as one of the best arguments for a god, but the intelligent design claim is flawed. Order and complexity do not have to be planned by an intelligence - they can evolve.
What enables evolution to be possible, Arq? What is the source of everything about our reality that you take for granted as a given?
What is the source of everything about our reality that you take for granted as a given?
This seems vague to me since everyone experiences reality differently. Everyone forms their own perspective based on the "dream" lens they've agreed with and accepted as their truth.
I have long ago realized that you do NOT engage in philosophic thinking so I am not surprised that you think a simple definition of the process involved in evolution answers the much deeper question I asked. It is vague to you because you are unaccustomed to contemplating the deeper issues that involve what we otherwise take for granted about our reality. For you, our reality is what it is and you do not trouble yourself with questions about why or how it is as it is. Arq at least seems to try to do so but he is not comfortable with it and has no real facility with such thinking.
I have long ago realized that you do NOT engage in philosophic thinking so I am not surprised that you think a simple definition of the process involved in evolution answers the much deeper question I asked. It is vague to you because you are unaccustomed to contemplating the deeper issues that involve what we otherwise take for granted about our reality. For you, our reality is what it is and you do not trouble yourself with questions about why or how it is as it is. Arq at least seems to try to do so but he is not comfortable with it and has no real facility with such thinking.
I think you should stop insulting posters you disagree with. It's getting monotonous.
I think you should stop insulting posters you disagree with. It's getting monotonous.
That you consider this post insulting reveals an inappropriate understanding of insults. There are far too many of you in here who make a habit of seeing insults where there are none, I suspect deliberately.
I have long ago realized that you do NOT engage in philosophic thinking so I am not surprised that you think a simple definition of the process involved in evolution answers the much deeper question I asked.
Sure I hold 3 science degrees and thus don't engage in philosophical thinking. Sure just keep telling yourself this as much as it flies in the face of reality.
I did not provide a simple definition of evolution I provided what's required for the process to occur naturally.
It's widely accepted among scientists that humans have greatly affected natural evolutionary processes.
Ex's:
Antibiotic resistance
Pesticide resistance
Human activity that results in mass extinctions of other species
Human activity that is affecting our own species' evolution
Technology - has protected us to a large extent from selective pressures, which are what drives natural evolution
Overall humans are no longer isolated thus there is no genetic isolation - which again is what drives speciation among our species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is vague to you because you are unaccustomed to contemplating the deeper issues that involve what we otherwise take for granted about our reality.
I can guarantee I have contemplated deep issues involving our reality more than you have demonstrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
For you, our reality is what it is and you do not trouble yourself with questions about why or how it is as it is.
Unreal how you think you know what I think on this subject. You have no clue what I think. You simply toss out your unsubstantiated opinions based on your arrogance with respect to thinking you are philosophically superior than anyone in this forum and that everyone else is intellectually challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Arq at least seems to try to do so but he is not comfortable with it and has no real facility with such thinking.
LOL now you are trying to tell me what Arq is comfortable with and that he lacks the mental capacities to think for himself on such matters? I don't buy into your unsubstantiated opinions.
There's a reason why Science and Philosophy divorced long ago. Philosophy does not generate knoweldge. Science does...Science is the path to truth.
Can you list anyone who has actively participated in the advancement of evolution or physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers?
That you consider this post insulting reveals an inappropriate understanding of insults. There are far too many of you in here who make a habit of seeing insults where there are none, I suspect deliberately.
1. So you're a PhD. And I have 4 university degrees, been published, won state and national awards. So what? This is just a forum, not a thesis.
2. If "many" of us here see these comments as insults, perhaps you ought to consider the opinion of many.
3. We get no more of a glimpse of what any poster is like.
I can guarantee I have contemplated deep issues involving our reality more than you have demonstrated.
I can only assume you have not read my Synthesis if you believe the bold.
Quote:
Unreal how you think you know what I think on this subject. You have no clue what I think. You simply toss out your unsubstantiated opinions based on your arrogance with respect to thinking you are philosophically superior than anyone in this forum and that everyone else is intellectually challenged.
I have never said any such thing but many have accused me of same unwarrantedly.
Quote:
LOL now you are trying to tell me what Arq is comfortable with and that he lacks the mental capacities to think for himself on such matters? I don't buy into your unsubstantiated opinions.
I said no such thing but you have made many such unwarranted inferences.
Quote:
There's a reason why Science and Philosophy divorced long ago. Philosophy does not generate knowledge. Science does...Science is the path to truth.
That is a very narrow definition of knowledge that is in keeping with my inferences about the depth of your thinking. To help you, here is the scope of philosophy:
Philosophy is the systematic and critical study of fundamental questions that arise both in everyday life and through the practice of other disciplines. Some of these questions concern the nature of reality: Is there an external world? What is the relationship between the physical and the mental? Does God exist? Others concern our nature as rational, purposive, and social beings: Do we act freely? Where do our moral obligations come from? How do we construct just political states? Others concern the nature and extent of our knowledge: What is it to know something rather than merely believe it? Does all of our knowledge come from sensory experience? Are there limits to our knowledge? And still others concern the foundations and implications of other disciplines: What is a scientific explanation? What sort of knowledge of the world does science provide? Do scientific theories, such as evolutionary theory, or quantum mechanics, compel us to modify our basic philosophical understanding of, and approach to, reality? What makes an object a work of art? Are aesthetic value judgments objective? And so on.
In short, science provides explanations of how reality functions. Philosophy uses that knowledge to explore what reality IS, what are the bases for ethics, morality, etc., oh and by the way, whether or not a God concept is supportable. It is not possible to engage such issues with only what science provides.
my middle ground, based on the periodic table, is that the universe is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The "universe" is just to big right now. So I chucked it down to a more manageable size, out to 50AU from the sun.
So to see what that means, I calculated a complexity vs volume ratio in a common cell and compared that to the biosphere's ratio. The calculation matches better with life than any other non living thing I know. I used the LHC as the most complex non living thing I know. ok, now measurement. we need a measurement that any person can do for themselves. well, you know what I mean, those that have a mind to.
I have been asking trained people for the better part of 20 years about what I just gave you. In person, no one ever said I was wrong.
do you see the difference in your faith and my faith?
My faith does not require me to answer to "anti-religion" dogma.
So two separate discussions here.
First: (somewhat scientific and philosophical) - you seem to believe that there are EXTREMELY accurate yet dynamic forces that are in play in nature - and these dynamic forces (their direction and magnitude changes) are so extremely intelligent and so extremely powerful that they are holding everything together within the 50AU from the sun? Mind you, there is A LOT of cosmic action going on with great accuracy within the 50AU of sun.
IMO, to create equilibrium within 50 AU of sun, seems to require some unimagineable amount of intelligence and an unimagineable amount of force to be applied with an unimagineable precision. For example, a slight change in the 23.5 angle, and life is perhaps over on earth.
So how did this happen? This equilibrium was put in action by who or what? Or it formed by itself? I ask this because we know that 50AU of sun didn’t exist before the Big Bang.
If this equilibrium was created and put in effect on a random chance then,
Here is a small experiment I would like you do for me.
Get a small empty bucket and go out to your driveway.
Collect a few small rocks and put them together to form the alphabets to spell your name.
Take a photo of your name made by that rock formation so you have an evidence.
Now put all the rocks in a bucket, and toss them high in their, and see if they land on the driveway by forming your name again?
If no, then look at the design and motion of the astronomical rocks, that we call stars and planets, within the 50AU of sun, and ask yourself that how such a design on astronomical scale can form by chance when the landing rocks don’t form your name by chance?
Second question.
Please enlighten us with your scientific work and formulae/calculations where you calculated, complexity vs volume ratio in a common cell and compared that to the biosphere's ratio. And you noticed that the calculation matches better with life than any other non living thing you know.
And frankly speaking, I am not aware of any term called “Biosphere Ratio”. So let’s start with a short and precise explanation of that and then move on to the actual question 2 and 1
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.
