As a person with a fair understanding of logic , I’d like to point out that point 2) is absolutely false. If A then B means only that it is not the case that A is true and B is false. No causation is expressed or implied, and reading causation into it is flatly incorrect. “If Martha Stewart is a woman, Then George Bush is a man” is a true and perfectly correct use of the logical “If/Then”. And it doesn’t mean that Martha made a man out of Bush either.
To concrete the point, “If A, Then B” ‘means’ “If Not B, then Not A”. The statement can be flipped, and if one is true, then other one is too! Take that causality!
Attempts to prove that logic, math, etc are bound to the universe are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic, math, etc, are. They are self-contained abstract systems, consisting only of arbitrary definitions and arbitrary rules. Some of them appear to model reality, but that’s reality’s problem - the system’s truisisms with itself (including its own definition) are true regardless of reality, and regardless of anyone knowing them, and regardless of anyone creating them. (And regardless of whether God might want to alter them. Take that omnipotence!) We’ve noticed that logic leads us to correct conclusons, given correct information. And if that’s true, it’s true when talking about the world, the prime mover (which was likely a mindless ‘nothingness-fart’), or God-concepts. Period.
You know, you’re absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.
magellan01, I apologise for my error. It looks like I was wrong, we can positively say we can use deductive logic on extraUniverse entities.
That still leaves everything from 3 to part 1 of 6, so I’m still happy - we can’t say anything about causality outside the Universe. Which still leaves a PM moot (which, on rethinking is only sensible - I was using deductive methods to say something about a PM anyway, so arguing for not using DL was paradoxical)
And begbert2, I like your phrasing of it in your last paragraph to anything else said by the rest of us up to now:
I don’t see why there needs to be something willing things to happen on a timetable. It is what it is. It happens when it happens. Does this mean you believe in determinism? If so, why? Again, that doesn’t mesh with, at least, the laws of this universe where everything appears to occur randomly. At least outside of the influence of living things though our influence is limited.
Also, how is twoness represented in a singularity? I think we agree on this point but this is one example where such a thing doesn’t hold and shouldn’t be taken as gospel.
It can be argued that there is no evidence for any of this, making it all a null hypothesis and that we are arguing about nothing. Without something eternal being evident, where is your prime mover? Without it, where is energy or any mode of existence? Indeed, there is no evidence at all to contradict a stance that existence is nothing more than a random effect that comes and goes without cause. No need for a prime mover or infinite energy at all. Stuff just happens. As mind boggling as it is, even that cannot be ruled out. Some might argue that is the most likely scenario.
But we argue about these things because of our anthropomorphic desire to find some shred of causality before the bang. It may not be so but it makes more sense to believe that something may have always existed. One can point, however, to current scientific theory that points to some probability of a multiverse, or an omniverse, or what have you. There is some evidence that leads us to believe that our universe may be nestled within a multiverse or could be part of a larger whole. One that, overall, may have different laws within its nature that ours does, but providing some energy state which suggests causality. For instance the unification of the laws of gravity, which differs on the cosmological and quantum scales, mostly makes sense if it exists outside of our universe.
Where do all the particles on the quantum level that constantly pop into being and then disappear come from? At least we have evidence of those on record. I see no reason why energy in some form shouldn’t always have existed; it’s the most obvious solution. Not so for an intelligent prime mover. A mover suggests a lot of unnecessary complexity, not limited to the raising of awareness. Does a star need to have awareness to collapse? Does a rock need awareness to be subject to the rules of thermodynamics? Why couldn’t energy have always existed? How is that different than gods who have always existed?
Why wouldn’t it be possible that a multiverse has always existed? Why can’t it operate on it’s own terms outside of our laws of causality? I can’t understand why you find this simple explanation less substantial than that of a prime mover. A prime mover would need energy + consciousness to invoke a universe. Who knows, maybe a charge account as well. Either raw energy, or a god, or something would probably need to have always existed for us to argue for extra-causality. Again, neither completely rule out that existence is somehow a random effect that comes and goes without cause.
Unless it turns out that we, and the reality we know, are nothing more than a supremely advanced piece of software that is running I don’t see how the argument for a prime mover is the stronger. A pool of energy that has always existed and perhaps always will, is no less likely a cause for our being than a watchmaker. Nothing need create energy that simply always was. The watchmaker begs a more difficult causality (outside of our own) due to it’s greater complexity which would require multiple levels of causation. Eternal or not. Not impossible mind you. But will requires consciousness which seems to requires evolution of some sort.
Call it Occam’s razor which argues against it. Not only would some energy which has always existed be a more elegant explanation. We have theoretical evidence that, in explaining how singularities rise or how theoretical branes might come crashing together, state ways in which natural forces could create a universe. Just as we have the possibility of multiple universes as suggested by working theory.
Call your prime mover what you will, it is still a watchmaker which hasn’t yet been defined. And without that definition it is not consistent enough to run a falsifiable experiment to search for him/them/it.
Bullshit. Sure it matters when I stipulated that it was a special case having to do with a PM, someone who by definition has nothing preceding it.
[Laughing my head off] Oh, so context does matter after all. I’m glad I could help you learn that lesson. [Absolutely hilarious, though]
Apology completely and graciously accepted. And genuinely appreciated. Some people find it impossible to do, to the detriment of themselves and these boards. Thank you.
Glad your happy. Not any more right, but happy is good. But tell me, what is it that begbert2 wrote that you liked so much? When I have been making those exact points?
You have failed to argue AT ALL for WHY the PM is a “special case” with regard to the link between intentionality, intelligence and complexity, just stated it. What does “preceded it” have to do with anything?
And the Universe, “by definition”, also has nothing preceding it. Does that make it it’s own PM? If not, why not?
Context matters, but in the previous example, it wasn’t the PM that was the context, it was the intentionality. Like I said, you’d linked intentionality, intelligence & complexity with necessity. I say again - it doesn’t matter if this refers to the PM or something else, it’s that link you have to justify - which up to now, you have not.
No problem
You at no point I can tell argued that there was no link between modus ponens and causality (if you did, I’d like a post cite), and certainly not in the logical way bb2 did. And I’m happy because I’m still right about causality - unless you have a logical refutation for the argument from (3) onwards (which doesn’t require (1) and (2) to reach conclusion (6)part 1)
And still no answer to whether you acknowledge evolution, or what definition of Universe you’re using.
and this, the original passage in which you went to great pains to ignore context:
The first sentence is a general proposition (couched as such), one that if you focus on the two “mores”, I don’t know how you could disagree with it. Do you? Why? Then comes the point of the passage, the point you seem intent on ignoring. My point seems extremely clear there. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. If you fail to digest that sentence I don’t know how I can help you.
Where did the matter come from? The energy. What set things in motion? And why at that particular time? Why not a year, day, minute or second earlier or later? If you have an answer for those things, I’d be happy to entertain the proposition that the universe was it’s own PM.
Incorrect. See above.
Sorry. I was referring to his last paragraph only, the one you pointed to and agreed with/admired.
What, precisely, do you think you are right about?
I don’t recall seeing a question about evolution. But I’m surprised you ask it, as you should have been able to glean from all that I’ve posted that I don’t view a PM as being at all in conflict with evolution. Evolution is mum on the beginning of everything, i.e., the cause of the big bang. And the discussion about the PM I’ve been having only goes to THE first cause. Nothing else. I don’t know how you could not understand that at this point in the discussion.
If you’d like to know my stance on evolution just for the hell of it. I think evolution is factual, as far as, adaptation and changes occurring over time. I think it might have needed some help from time to time in regards to things like eyeballs and flagellum. I base this notion on reading I’ve done that points to the probability of these things naturally evolving given the age of our universe. So, while evolution is a fact of nature, I don’t know if it alone explains everything. I can see both sides of the debate and haven’t been convinced one way or another to hold a strong opinion.
The bolded bit? The bit that I was actually addressing? Yes, I disagree with it - couching it in relative terms doesn’t change the lack of correctness, either. Why? I addressed this with my remarks about evolution and snowflakes.
Since it was the first sentence I’ve been addressing all along, like I said, the “context” could be anything. The fact that it refers to a PM doesn’t signify - the truth or not has nothing to do with precedence, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
Nowhere
Nowhere
Nothing
This is a meaningless question as it relates to the Big Bang, as you should know.
There were no years, days, minutes, seconds before the BB. And after, is all relative to the BB, so it’s always at T=0. That’s the whole point of saying the BB initiated Space/Time
Those are the standard answers. You’re really acting as if you have no clue how the BB is explained in physics & cosmology.
See above.
It was how he put it - I don’t see where you referred to logic as an abstract system that can apply to anything and always contains it’s own truth. But again, cite the post if you did.
That causality is not required for a Universe.
It was in relation to Darwin disproving that you need intentionality to have intelligence (you know, that statement I’ve been objecting to for … Elder Gods, has it really been DAYS now?
Never said you did, although it turns out your starting premise (bolded above) runs counter to evolutionary thought. More intelligent doesn’t mean more likely to be intentional.
I do. It wasn’t in reference to the BB (or the PM directly) that I brought it up.
You do realise the standard ID canards about eyeball and flagellum have been thoroughly debunked, I hope?
The argument from probability has also been debunked.
Point to what it doesn’t explain, maybe I or someone else can help you out.
This is not true. You do hold an opinion, and it’s in direct opposition to evolutionary theory. Couching it in terms of being a fence-sitter or neutral is just obfuscatory. You do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you believe it “needs help”. You believe in Intelligent Design. Calling it anything else would be disingenuous.
So you don’t just believe in a PM, I take it, but also an interventionist God?
Does that include all of Space and Time to you? Do you believe Outside the Universe is accessible in some real way?
I don’t think one can believe both in determinism, in the strict sense, and human will. But I do adhere to determinism as far as natural processes go. We may have a difficult time understanding all the relationships between Event A and Event Z, but I believe them to be there.
I don’t think it is, in the singularity. But I see a singularity as being one thing for now, with the potential to be all things. I think the laws of logic will hold true. I think that if a singularity comes to express itself, and has within that expression what we know to be a circle, that Pi will be as helpful in understanding that circle then as now. Same for set theory. Same for 2 + 2 = 4.
I disagree, in that I think logic points to a PM. But I do agree that there is no “evidence”, other than the fact that we are here.
Of course, it is a possibility. But “most likely”? I strongly disagree. In fact, the more you use the laws of logic to evaluate degrees of likeliness, I think those same laws argue for everything having a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause (and cannot) is a God/PM.
Again, I make the same point: why is something infinite, timeless, more likely than God? You cannot point to evidence of either one. Neither appear in our universe. They are concepts not of our realm. I agree they both can be true, but I think the PM/God is easier to fathom. I mean it seems much harder to me to wrap your head around “stuff” that always existed. Even the big bang doesn’t have stuff being eternal, the elements were created one by one from energy. Then I ask what created the energy? I guess it is possible that this infinite universe moves from a state of pure energy into one that is matter rich and then eventually transforms back, again and again, ad infinitum. Possible, but I see nothing in my existence that argues that that is a more likely scenario. At least with a PM we’re hanging our hat in a logical concept that appears to be inviolate.
Multiverse theory, brane theory, and others are all logical explanations. But they all need either the concept of infinity for natural things (energy/matter) or a PM. As mentioned, I think the latter is the better guess. Which in the end, is what it is.
We don’t know. But since it is our experience that things do not pop into existence and come from “nowhere”, it seems that the default assumption should be that they did indeed come from somewhere and popped in for some reason.
“Awareness” is a nice concept. But I ask again where did the energy come from. And since it is 100% of our experience that energy is created by something or some process, I don not see why it is any more likely than a PM. They are both alien to our world.
I like the way this is stated. The only part I’d argue with is the concept of having random events going back in perpetuity. I think you would need an intentional event. Now, this universe might not have been the intention. For all we know we are one of the shavings off a lathe on the shop floor. But if there is PM/God, he would, indeed have intention. If not he would simply be the source of energy you mention, not the PM. Maybe the best thing to say is that God is that source of energy + intention.
Now this is what I don’t get. When God is not in the picture, the concept of things existing for infinity—energy/matter—is embraced by you. But the minute God is postulated it’s “b-b-b-but God would have to be created by something else, because you can’t say his existence is infinite.” Well, since we have no—zero—evidence of anything being infinite (other than concepts), it seems that infiniteness is a possibility, the most likely place you’d find it is within God.
and I was enjoying your discussion so much up till this. Oh well…
You seem to have a bug up your ass, and I’ve neither the time nor inclination to rehash the same ground when you simply refuse to take the words I write to mean what they say.
You took a statement I made and evaluated it out of context. I pointed this out and showed the absurdity of your little game. You ignore it. You took—and insist on taking—a statement about intelligence and the Prime Mover and want me to say that I mean it applies to instances not having to do with the PM. Sorry, can’t help you there. Context matters. It’s as simple as that. If you can’t see that a PM would, in fact,—by definition, be a special case, I can’t help you there either.
When I ask you to evaluate something I said you refuse to evaluate it taking into account the relative aspect of the statement, saying that the relative terms CONTAINED THEREIN do not change things. Another stunning statement showing great effort to not understand someone. Well done. You have a special talent for this.
I asked you what it was about** begbert2’s** reply that you liked, when it mirrored what I have been arguing. You thought I meant the totality of his reply. Fair enough. I then pointed out that I was referring to one paragraph. Still you want to build the impression that I was referring to statements he made outside that paragraph.
You bring up something about “Elder gods” now. I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it was something from days ago and I missed it, my apologies for having a life outside these boards.
You asked me if I believe in evolution. I told you I do. I told you that I don’t know if the current theory explains everything. I stated that it may or may not. And that it is mum on the topic of our origins—you know, THE TOPIC WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
I told you that I have heard both sides of the debate about whether and that I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or another. You then attempt to say that I believe in Intelligent Design. Thanks for the news flash. Now if you know half of what you think you do about the subject, you would know that there is a big difference between what is known Intelligent Design and intelligent design (small i, d). If you do not know this I advise you to look it up for future discussions with others.
I wish you luck in finding those others who enjoy holding beliefs that you ascribe to them.
But we are done. Others have been able to engage in this debate and disagree with me and have it be a pleasant experience. I’m accustomed to getting paid to do things I don’t enjoy, so unless you want to talk about my fee structure, I wish you luck.
I quoted your words, I even bolded the bits I was talking about. No bugs.
Again with the PM. I’m asking you to defend one statement. You have, again, failed to even try and explain how the PM being a special case (nice fallacy of special pleading there) makes a difference. Explain it to me.
Please *do *explain how the “mores” make the link, between intentionality and intelligence/complexity being necessary, any more true. I have not seen such an explanation, just more “you’re just not getting it” statements.
No, I get what you said the second time - so, still no post cite for you saying the same thing as him? Why should I believe you without a CITE?
HA, the “you have no life” accusation, suitably veiled.tick
Anyway, the “Elder Gods” was just an expression of frustration, like someone else might “Jesus Christ” or “For the Love of Krishna”. The actual answer was the bit about Darwin that you seem to have skipped over.
Evolution of intelligence is a counter to you stance on intentionality. It’s perfectly relevant.
There is no difference between those terms. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Certainly Wikipedia doesn’t seem to draw a distinction.
But either way, you do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you think there are design interventions.
The “you’re strawmanning me” defence? tick
You realise everyone else can read what you wrote, right?
Straw poll: Is there anyone who doesn’t get ID out of the stance on evolution magellan01 took?
Call me when they change it to “Pleasant Debates”. The only reason it has been an unpleasant experience for you is because your tactics of ad hominems and special pleadings haven’t actually worked, and you haven’t been able to rustle up the actual deductive logic you claim to proize so highly, to counterargue. Hell, someone else had to do the heavy lifting for you for even a sideline argument. Losing a debate is never pleasant, I’m sure.
That has to be the suckiest walk-off-in-a-huff excuse yet. Man up and just say you can’t actually counter the arguments. Don’t pull some “I’m too important to debate” bullshit, when you’ve been managing with the unpleasantness just fine for days now.
So far as I know the ID position does not require you to believe that every instance of evolution was designed, so yes, I read his post as being pro-intelligent design.
Also, I find it amazing that a person can believe that man evolved from single celled organisms and also assert “Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention.” - the two positions are diametrically opposed. Humans clearly are extremely ordered and intelligent, and evolution claims that they emerged through purely natural methods, with no creator or designer or intention whatsoever. If you think things as complex as them have to have been designed, then you cannot believe they evolved; ID or explicit creation are your only remaining options.
Of course, evolution merely disproves the premise that intelligence is required for design. While that’s extremely damaging to the watchmaker argument, the real killer is that, if something as complex as the universe or humans or whatever requires a more complex designer, then that designer also requires a designer, ad infinitum, to impossibility and ridiculosity. But if God doesn’t require a designer, then the universe or humans or whatever don’t either. Special pleading is a fallacious attempt to ignore this fundamental problem with the argument - and is convincing only to those willing to be convinced by fallacies. (Especially once the fallacy has been clearly pointed out.)
For an example of a highly complex process arising from a very simple algorithm, one can consider the Mandelbrot Set. Magnify it 60 billion times and the complexity remains. Yet it can be created with just a few lines of code (though plotting it is another matter).
Then again, perhaps the Great Initiator did not consider Himself greater than His creation. Heck, the Great Initiator could be an aspect of His work for all I know.
I’ve been pretty busy, but I thought I’d try to address some final points before signing off this thread for good. Especially since neither side can prove their position. So…
To recap, you also said:
And here is the passage in question, with the sentence you insist on taking out of context bolded:
Now, you said you disagree with that statement, even though it has the qualifier “more” in their twice. So you evidently think that given two objects, A and B, that if A displays greater order/intelligence than B, that it does NOT more strongly suggest that Object A was the intentional product of a sentient being? In other words, I believe that if I walk through a forest on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and come upon two things, a rifle and a rock that kind of round on one side, that the rifle suggests that it was the result of a direct intention moreso then the rock. You evidently disagree with that. Please explain.
While you’re at it, could you please explain why you insist on taking that sentence out of context? The context “could be anything”, you say. Sure, if it was devoid of context, but it wasn’t. Look at the subject of the thread. Look at the subject of the post. Look at the subject of the paragraph, which is clear from the adjacent sentence.
I’ve explained this more than once already. The PM is that which preceded everything. Therefore, nothing could have preceded him, even a less perfect him. So, unlike an eyeball and flagellum, which could very well be the result of gradual processes over time, that would not work for THE Prime Mover. It indeed IS a special case.
See above.
Because you can read the thread? I agree with you that he put things well in that last paragraph you cited. I agree with the paragraph. Much of what I was saying about mathematical concepts and plane geometry and relationships of circles was saying the same things, albeit not as clearly I guess.
This thread is NOT about evolution, as much as you want it to be. The theory of evolution is absolutely silent on what we’ve been discussing for pages now, i.e,. what might have caused the universe? What might have caused the Big Bang? Do you not know that evolution occurs after the BB and what I’m talking about would, by definition, precede it?
But just to put that part of the discussion to bed, I do not doubt the process of evolution, particularly as it relates to generational changes. This process may account for everything, nice and neat. On the other hand, the theory as currently stated might not account for everything. Some large leaps may have been necessary, whether through large aberrant mutations or intervention of some kind. I DO NOT KNOW. If my making allowance for the latter disqualifies me from your clubhouse where everyone KNOWS the theory to be true and complete as is, so be it. If that means you would like to think of me as someone who does not believe in evolution, (even though I do), boo hoo for me.
Yet, so many others are able to be pleasant while disagreeing without the sign on the door. Funny that.
Yes, man is a highly complex creation, one that could very well have been the result of pure evolution, from one cell to man.
That the more ordered/complex an object it, the more it argues for an intelligent designer. I’ve explained this in detail in my previous post.
Please explain why they are in conflict. Please explain why you think both are not true.
How does evolution disprove an intelligent designer? Also, why is that last statement true? It would only necessarily be true if you equate God with the universe and humans. That seems to be a leap you make. No?
How is that relevant here? IF there is a God/Prime Mover, he would have qualities not possessed by man or the universe. The proof of that would be that he existed without a cause, while the others did. So it is therefore incorrect to call the argument fallacious on those grounds. We look at it as a special case because it truly is. I think you make the error by assuming God and man to have similar qualities, particularly in their need for a cause and/or the degree to which they are each imbued with the quality of infinite being. Again, if that is not right,why?
I have already proven my position, using deductive logic. You have failed to use same to disprove it.
What warped definition of intelligence and order are you going for here? A gun is no more intelligent than a rock. Depending on the rock, it can be much more ordered than the rifle. A nice sorted conglomerate, for instance, would be orders of magnitude more ordered than a rifle. It’s also cherry-picking of examples. Suppose I walked along and found this and this? Which is more ordered? More the result of focused intention vs blind instinct? The watchmaker argument is sophomoric.
Anyway, I believe the word you’re adroitly dancing around mentioning there is “complexity”, not “order”, and even that would be inappropriate. This is one of many ways the classic watchmaker argument, which you’ve just attempted to restate, falls down - there is no easy measure of order or complexity I know of that distinguishes the natural from the designed. We can tell the rifle/watch is categorically different from the rock because of experience, nothing more. If your alien rifle was like the fishbone gun in eXiSteNz, how would you distinguish intention then? We have a wealth of experience of the materials we expect to find in nature versus manmade things, the kind of shapes we expect natural things to have, etc. But we don’t have a measure of order, IMO, as a distinguishing filter.
So much for order. I’ve already dealt with the ridiculousness of using intelligence as any guide to intentionality. So now, what need for a Prime Mover?
I’ve repeatedly explained why I think context doesn’t matter here. The sentence I quoted either stands or it doesn’t. In what way is its logic dependent on the sentence that follows? And the “mores” do not affect the logic of the link you attempt to show. An attempt which I’ve shown fails.
Yes, it’s a “special case” of special pleading.
And I notice how the eyeball and flagellum are not such good examples anymore? You do realise Behe hasn’t updated his playbook in a while, right? You’re going to struggle to come up with fresh ones.
Don’t be pedantic. I have read the thread, and I’m asserting you didn’t say anything resembling what he said, so if you assert that you did, cite where you said it, and we can discuss that specific instance. Otherwise stop trying to ride his coattails.
Including the “nothingness-fart” observation? (great term, BTW, bb2)?
No need to guess. No, not saying it anywhere nearly as clearly.
No, I used the fact of evolution of intelligence as a counter to one of your assertions. That doesn’t make the thread about it in any way, but does mean that your acceptance or not of the theory is significant, as to whether we’re on the same page with regard to background. That you tried to obfuscate your beliefs didn’t help.
It has some small evidence to offer on whether you need intentionality to develop ordered and intelligent things. So no, *not *absolutely silent on what we’ve discussed, no.
Yes, but that’s not why I brought it up. Strawman.
Why are you attacking an argument I never made? Is it because you can’t defend your own logic? Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?
Good grief, do you realise how your language gives you away here? You can’t sneak in under the radar masquerading as a true-blue evolutionist if you use the creationist & ID shibboleths. And you were doing so well - avoiding the words “irreducible” and “complexity” so neatly.“Generational changes!” - You’ll be mentioning “microevolution” next… :smack:
It does.No need for the “may”.
Name ONE. Please. Name JUST ONE thing it doesn’t account for.
No case where “large leaps” are needed has ever stood up to scrutiny. Look, it’s the Intelligent Designer of the Gaps!
This does not make you some sort of neutral party. It makes you wrong. “I DON"T KNOW” is a valid stance on what’s outside the Universe. It is not a valid one on the Theory of Evolution, which is cold, hard scientific fact.
The club of people in the right? OK. You’ve shown no sign of wanting to come in, anyway.
You can’t be an IDer and claim to believe in evolution. Pick a side. Anything else is disingenuous.
Let’s see - one of us has been making adversarial remarks about the strength of the other’s position and use of logic as evidenced in this thread. The other has been using ad hominems, made numerous accusations of hostility and also made veiled personal attacks .
Which one of those would you classify as the unpleasant one to debate? Yet here I am, still debating you, with no intention of tucking tail or throwing a hissy fit. Maybe it’s because I don’t have a life :rolleyes:.
Or maybe, I’m right, and you know it, and are going for a stalemate because it’s the best you can hope for because I don’t intend to let you dodge out of things. If you’re going to leave in a huff, for Hastur’s sake just stop talking about it and do so, but don’t pretend it’s because I was a little tough in debating you. It’ll be because you lost the debate, couldn’t counter the logic, didn’t answer direct questions until hounded, wouldn’t offer cites, and didn’t succeed in browbeating me out with ad hominems.
If I was really as unpleasant as you’re claiming, instead of merely adversarial, I’m pretty sure a Mod would have stepped in by now. But I haven’t been - you’re just looking for an easy out that doesn’t involve actual logic. Feel free to quit anytime, I’d hate to run up too big a tab :rolleyes: .
We’re not at home to Mr. Logic today, are we? You do realise that you’re using a hugely circular argument here :
“The PM exists without a cause, therefore he has properties that caused things don’t have…like (tada!) not having a cause!”
I never said order or complexity PROVED intent or intelligence, just that the MORE ordered an object was the MORE it would suggest intentional intelligence. That suggestion is not proof, it is merely that, a suggestion. You crafted an example to prove a position wrong that I do not hold.
Well, let’s try this example. We have two wooden objects, so as far as their internal complexity, they would be equal, right? Now we further describe those two objects: one is just a hunk of amorphously shaped wood. The other is a wagon wheel. There you go, the wheel would be the object that would MORE strongly suggest intent. Correct? If not, why not?
It was never intended to stand on it’s own. If it were, I wouldn’t have other sentences around it. The first sentence was laying down a proposition for the next. It was a preamble of sorts. I’ve pointed this out numerous times, yet you still insist I intended it to stand alone. Tell me what do I want for dinner?
No you haven’t. You wish the sentence to mean the same thing with the qualifying “mores” in it as it would if they weren’t there. That is simply absurd. Words matter, especially when they are there specifically to be qualifiers.
THAT is rich! :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: I acknowledged your complimenting him. I asked you why what he said in that paragraph resonanted so comfortable with you when some of the same points made by me didn’t. Here is what I was referring to, the fact that logic and relationships based purely on logic will hold up here and elsewhere. For example:
If by that he meant that we—our universe—to be the result from a fart of a PM, then yes, I agree that that is a possibility. I have stated in this thread that that although I hold that PM created us, I do not ascribe any necessary specialness to that creation. As I think I put it, we may simply be some detritus on his shop room’s floor.
You do realize that evolution is a theory, right? That some aspects of it have been proven, but others haven’t. You do realize that, don’t you. So, while you may use some proven aspect of evolution to disprove something, you cannot use an unproven aspect of it to disprove something. Counter it, yes. But elsewhere you seem to think that unproven aspects of evolutionary theory can disprove things when they cannot. They also cannot be used to counter a point that evolutionary theory is silent on, i.e., what caused the BB.
Evolutionary Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the univers. NOTHING as to what caused the Big Bang. If you think differently, I’ll ask you for a cite.
Okay. Here is your supposed airtight logic:
#2 has already been dispensed with by begbert2, so as you requested, we will move on to #3. I think we agree. I don’t know why you felt the need to add “as we know it”, but fine, we agree on 3. But maybe you qualified Time in #3 to make #4 appear more self-evident. But it is not. You are assuming that Time is absent from a realm that you have no way of knowing it is absent from. That makes #5 just an assumption you’re making, as well. and that shoots to hell your #6.
In fact, I’d say begbert2’s paragraph that you liked so much, and agreed with, conflicts with #6, as well. So do you agree with his paragraph that you lauded or do you hold to this “proof” you have offered?
I think I see the problem here. You feel the need to put people into camps that make you feel comfortable. So, you want to force me into one. As much as you insist otherwise, I do believe in the theory of evolution. I also accept that some of it is still a theory. I also understand that it is silent on most of what we have been discussing in this thread.
The beginniing of life. If you think it does, please provide a cite.
As I said, some aspects of the TOE are facts. Others are not. For instance, the allowance for the eye being the result of evolution and only evolution is a theory. Why do you insist on conflating the two?
There you go, “you’re either with us or agin’ us.” No thanks.
Nope. I just admit that neither of us can PROVE we are correct and the other is wrong. It’s quite amazing you don’t realize that. Do you really think this is the first time this discussion has been had?
