My Magic 8-Ball says no.
And I’m inclined to agree.
No.
When a mommy magnet and a daddy magnet love each other very much, they have a cute little dipole.
No.
No.
Intelligent design is bad, sloppy, make believe “science” and it’s garbage.
Pure Win.
(Video to the reference)
Duh. Adamantium.
One year? One day it looked like the thing in your nuts and the thing in her ovarium area. At the moment of conception it looked like a little explosion and then a person that we know today as Me <insert snide remark here… you look like a sperm face>
Other then that, how do I answer that question?
btw- how did this drivel evolve into a great debate?
Yeah ok. Sorry but bad choices. The appendix apparently did serve a purpose. Lots of us also live an entire life with no appendix problem.
Maybe a better answer would be why is it such a hard thing for our species to give birth? I’ve been present at many animal birthings and one thing they all had in common was i didn’t need to be there (anecdotal for sure but still you know it’s true for the most part} 2 children, 1 c-section and 1 “how the hell did you do that??” So I do know some women can accomodate but they still say it hurts like hell! go figure
OK, let’s say there is an intelligent designer. But living things still evolved, right? Newer designs are improvements of older designs, right? And there was no Adam and Eve–let alone Noah’s Ark, right?
Because we evolved from quadrupeds; the human female pelvis is a compromise between bipedalism and birth. And because our distant ancestors didn’t have big brains to squeeze out though a narrow birth canal. And because evolution doesn’t redesign things from the ground up like a human would.
And, most importantly because it’s good enough to keep the species going; evolution doesn’t care if it hurts or not.
NOLA, you start off with the assumption that things are the way they are because there was an intelligent designer, that things are “too perfect” to have come about from random chance.
Then let’s assume for the sake of argument the opposite. Everything happened by chance. How would that look any different from what we already have?
This is an idea I got from Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. In it, he mentions the philosopher Wittenstein (I think that was the name), who once asked a rather interesting question. He asked why people believed that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. How would it look any different, he asked? Whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth revolved around the sun, it would look exactly the same wouldn’t it?
The same thing with the universe. You come in with preconceived notions of how things “should” be, nevermind what they actually are. It “looks” like things are designed, so of course it must have been. But never do you consider if it really was all a big accident, how it would look any different
In the absence of any kind of clear message from you, people made up their own and started arguing about it. At least I think that’s what happened.
The point is that time is a property of the universe itself. There is no such thing as “before” the universe, just like there is no such thing as “outside” the universe. Time is part of the universe just like matter and space are.
Hehe, like the key part:
*
Water, fire, air and dirt
Fucking magnets – how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed*
Time keeps on slippin’ slippin’ into the future.
Because an infinite regression of moved movers is impossible. The nature of our universe–composed only of things that each require a prior cause to come into its current state–means either that this regression backward is infinite (which is a non sequitur) or we must conclude that there’s a entity that exists that’s not subject to our universe’s constraints, the principal exception being that this entity has no cause. The syllogism says, simply, that since we cannot have an infinite regression of moved movers, there must be an unmoved mover. Nothing else explains the fact that the things we see, exist in the manner they exist. Of course, we needn’t call this entity God, and this particular syllogism (it seems to me) does not logically conclude in any particular religion’s specific notion of God.
Anyway, so goes the argument (which I buy)…
For various empirical reasons we don’t believe our universe has had an infinite sequence of events. But in the abstract, why is an infinite chain of cause and effect impossible?
We aren’t sure about this. Various quantum events appear spontaneous. Of course we could postulate that there are hidden mechanisms, or that such spontaneous events can only happen due to some property of our universe. But such an assertion would be unsupported.
Or neither. In our every day lives time is like the number line and it makes sense to ask what happened before t = 0.
But physicists have long abandoned that view of time. Relativistic physics has time as a dimension and something which is intrinsically linked to space, with both having a topology and being capable of being warped.
Whatever the answer is to understanding existence itself, it’s a pretty safe bet that “common-sense” notions of time aren’t going to take us very far.
I think your reasoning here is at least sound 
btw Although I’m an atheist I’m happy to concede that there is an explanatory gap in understanding existence itself. Spacetime being “finite but unbounded” doesn’t change that for me.
Why would an intelligent designer who hated sin, create people he knew were going to sin since he knows everything and planned everything out? Unless he was a psychopath and wanted to send people to hell? Also, I don’t know why people are debating what our bones would be made out of since an “intelligent” designer could just change the laws of physics so that we wouldn’t need bones or need to eat even. An appendix? Why even a digestive system? If you have infinite power, there are steps and things you could skip over and no one would have known the difference.
This is not actually impossible.
This is not a requiste characteristic of the universe. On a quantum level things do indeed come into existence without “cause.”
How is it is a non-sequitur? A non-sequitur to what?
Or the universe requires no “cause.” “Enity” is also the wrong word. A multiverse scenario, for instance, requires no “entity.”
Why can’t we?
The argument fails on several levels.