It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 34
18
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
haha. Intelligently designed computers.... Cars? Ok.

I give up.

I am truly stunned, no wonder I don't post here often. And no wonder so many put thier faith in just so stories. I guess we have more evolving to do.




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
haha. Intelligently designed computers.... Cars? Ok.

I give up.

I am truly stunned, no wonder I don't post here often. And no wonder so many put thier faith in just so stories. I guess we have more evolving to do.


That's what I'm trying to help you do is evolve so you can realize circular arguments are useless. It appears I got my point across.And as a bonus created a new theory about life creating the first life. Now all I have to do is name it.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I actually kind of agree with you my view on the universe is not thats its an intelligence per say. But more like Yin and Yang. The universe strives for balance you see it all over in physics. The ironic part is in striving for balance it creates aberrations for example black holes where balance is lost and gravity takes over. So then the universe has to correct that which is why black holes for a lack of a better term just dissipate. Matter existing in the universe was a side effect of probability going wrong once again the universe tries to straighten it out by creating space between universes spreading the matter out over further and further distances. And here's the scary part life itself oops another accident of probability, but that means the universe is trying to kill us. But on the positive note were still hanging in there. And we have probability helping us out so in the end who knows whats going to happen

edit on 6/4/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


Black holes are made to be more mysterious and oohhey and ahhey then they really are imo. Black holes are a nessecary result for the stability of galaxies. Just like hurricanes causes hurricane 'eyes' to exist, and the 'eye' helps the hurricane maintain its form, and a whirlpool or tornado has its center 'eye' hole, and there is the ying yang balance between the material swirling around that center, and the center maintain its centeredness, the black hole is the 'eye' of the galaxy. It would help if physists knew what space was, but a black hole is what happens when the space of the universe is 'twisted' up extremely, or when 'tons' of energy/matter is swirling around a center point, much.

Do you know if a black hole ever comes in contact with the space beyond the galaxy circumference? like does the galaxy as a whole move across a canvas of space, and that space filters in the black hole? or is the black hole a fixed point in space time, and as the galaxy swirls that point is being pulled and scrunched, and so as this is happening with many galaxies, if there is a finite amount of space (whatever it is!!! its so mysterious and important to know what space can possibly be) think of grabbing a sheet on a bed in multiple places and twisting them. If the sheet is stretchy like 'space is said to be', then this action could be the causes/result/ying yang of 'dark energy'/cosmological constant/spatial expansion.

"Matter existing in the universe was a side effect of probability going wrong"; I do not know what you mean by this... Before matter what existed? There always had to exist the energy= to the amount of matter and relative mass of that matter. And so you are assuming before this universes matter was in the format we are familiar with it was just eternally stable boring non material energy?

I dont agree life was an accident. The only thing that can ever matter or mean anything or be worthwhile, is the possession of awareness or existence. Life on earth is a small sample size of one possible way out of a fraction of infinity, that can be done with a specific amount of time and physical variables regarding the earth and this system. If biology was not consciously in control of creating those early life forms etc. then that means when the universe began that was determined and destined to occur. To me that is no accident, that is the point of the existence of the universe.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Also, you are still illogically comparing biological organisms to man made machinery. There is a big difference how natural selection operates in nature vs humans building cars. There are no genetics or self replicating mechanism in cars. Cars don't give birth or pass down genes, they don't adapt to environments. Any person with the tools and knowledge can build one. This is not the same with lifeforms. Humans design cars for very specific purposes with specific features and power. If your leg breaks can you just replace it with a new one? Can you upgrade your eyes for night vision? Natural selection does not have a conscious mind and does not pick and choose based on what it likes or finds convenient. There is no goal, there is only survival and environmental changes that push for it.


Ok I am saying nature as a whole, the totality of natural selection, is doing what humans do when they innovate. The earth is one system, composed from the same types of atoms as the rest of the supposed universe. And out of this system, and these atoms, arose millions of different types of creatures, some creatures have been upgraded for night vision, and flight, and to swim, some have evolved to the point where they can use their minds, to mimic these creatures, and their environment. They can find out how natural selection allowed the bird to fly, and fly themselves, or how night vision may work, and design night vision eyes. They follow the same laws the creatures followed, to innovate their bodies over time. And so man uses his mind to tap into and 'hack' or understand all the rules and laws, so he can take over his own evolutionary fate, and become the natural selector himself. If our legs break yes we can replace it with a new one, because we have learned what nature has came up with as far as viable size and mechanics of legs, and prosthetic legs do exist.

There are no genetics and self replication in cars, but cars depend on the genetics and self replication of humans, to exist. Because humans need cars, and humans exist in environments, cars do adapt to environments. Go to texas where lots of people have farm or are builders, lots of trucks. Go to a ski town, lots of 4X4s, go to a European city, lots of scooters or mini cars.

There is no goal for man, only survival. Natural selection tries many things. You are not seeing the miricle of creation that 1 organism exists, let alone the quadribillons that have. The complex mechanics from their tiniest parts to macro, all working in tandem, to keep the system working.

So natural selection and an early insect didnt 'know' intelligently that flying was possible. But they both worked toward making it possible? I couldnt say that early man didnt know a computer was possible, but over time the laws of physics and the laws of materials, and the questioning and trial and error of man, worked toward making the existence of the computer possible?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Thanks... but im not even a fan of what I wrote there. I dont think anyone replied to this but I like what I wrote here much better..

reply to post by ImaFungi
 



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by squiz
haha. Intelligently designed computers.... Cars? Ok.

I give up.

I am truly stunned, no wonder I don't post here often. And no wonder so many put thier faith in just so stories. I guess we have more evolving to do.


That's what I'm trying to help you do is evolve so you can realize circular arguments are useless. It appears I got my point across.And as a bonus created a new theory about life creating the first life. Now all I have to do is name it.


Your theory of a cell magically appearing (in the universe, when?) and then creating Dna, and then dissapearing isnt very logical or seemingly possible within the realm of physics.

I dont personally think this is a good direction to argue, but what do you think of the fact that, we only know humans can create rules, and laws. So are there any theories on why the laws of physics are what they are? Is it possible to conceive of potential laws of a system that dont end up in order?

(*hypothetical)If you knew nothing of this current universe, and existed with an intelligent being in an infinite nothingness before he created a universe. And he showed you all the math equations of the laws of physics, and he taught you about the subatomic particles, and the atoms they would create, but that is ALL he told you. And he was like when I press play; What will happen? Would it be possible to infer or imagine that this universe we are familiar with would come from that? Spherical masses of compact atomic reactions, orbiting massive spheres of highly energetic atoms. Which allows all of what you know has happend and can happen on this planet to happen, and all the things you are unaware of that have occured, and are occuring on other planets to happen. If you had those laws of physics, and the quality and quantity of material, could it be guessed the result?

Is it conceivably possible to create a system such as this universe, intelligently? Or are you just like a snobby art critic judging anothers work saying "blehh.. this work... humphh, it is not very intelligent"...

This is pretty much the argument. The past and future of reality (not only this universe... im assuming the past is infinite ( on good grounds i think) and that this universe isnt the first time something has happened in the history of history and that after this universe more things will happen, forever) are infinite. So even if we agree that this "set of all sets" infinite eternal existence of something, has no owner, is nature, has no boss or king or creator, but is the 'unguided?' creator of all things to come...My questions are, in this totality of history, is it possible for anything to be intelligently designed? Is it impossible to create something like the universe as an intelligence? Is it probable or likely in your mind that this universe is currently the only 'amount/quantity/quality" of reality to exist? And the main reason you dont jive with ID is because you personally cant imagine this universe being created or designed? Is it possible to make something not made out of subatomic particles? (we are trapped in this system which shares the same ground of style, subatomic particles, we cant exist this system, we cant create something that lasts forever, a septillion light milenia is only a tiny fraction of forever)...



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
First premise is false, humans are not the only beings that create codes. Your logic relies completely on humans being the only ones who make codes. Which is false. No. 3 is unsubstantiated.
That was easy.


You are now bringing up the same points I originally used to debunk you!!! And no, it doesn't rely on that alone, but it's true!

Please provide evidence of this other intelligent being that creates digital codes. Thanks. My guess is you will try to twist the words around to relate to something that has nothing to do with the argument.




Aside from human creations, not a single thing in the universe has ever been determined objectively to originate via intelligent design.


Not true.


Denial is a funny thing, isn't it. Please provide the evidence that anything in the universe has been objectively determined to have been designed intelligently besides human creations.




I'll ask again. What is the mechanism for intelligent design? It has not even been explained in the least yet.


What's the mechanism for intelligent design? Ummm... Intelligence.

Baaaahahahahaha. I'm sorry dude, but you backed yourself in a corner and now your primary points have been reduce to flat out denial.
at calling intelligence a mechanism. That's like me saying that DNA is the mechanism behind DNA. Intelligence alone doesn't magically poof DNA into existence.


This is further proof that you are playing semantics games and nothing more.



Then we have artificial intelligence.


No we don't.


Keep your fingers in your ears and scream that you can't hear me. Keep denying everything. We DO have artificial intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Geez man, your arguments are becoming down right pitiful. You've never played a video game?


There is only one way to refute it. You need to empirically demonstrate the unguided mechanism for semiosis. Simple as that. I am quite happy how this has turned out actually. I think I can just ignore you from now on. You don't offer anything except obfuscation. The inference is clear logical and empirical. Of course it takes some amount of reason and logic to comprehend it. So I don't expect you to get it.

Burden of proof is not your friend. At least ATTEMPT to understand what is meant by that concept and how you empirically prove that something exists. It's not up to me to prove you wrong or prove the opposing "side". My side is that your argument is straight garbage. I've proved it logically and shown your conclusions are not based on the papers you quoted, and all you do is flat out deny everything. You get upset when people compare you to a creationist or even loosely mention something like 'god', but yet you make arguments that are just as nonsensical. The 'inference' is the perfect example of this, because every time I explain the logic or lack thereof, you twist the words around and move the goal posts. It's blatantly obvious, too.

It would be nice if you even attempted to argue your point with the same level of scrutiny as you hold for the other side. It's absolutely ludicrous that you keep pretending I didn't debunk your logic. Keep blindly insisting it's true... and you actually had the gall to say I am being like a religious fundamentalist.

The thing that baffles me the most is that people are giving you stars for flat out denial, rather than proving your side. That speaks volumes about integrity.


haha. Intelligently designed computers.... Cars? Ok.

I give up.

I am truly stunned, no wonder I don't post here often. And no wonder so many put thier faith in just so stories. I guess we have more evolving to do.


This is pretty ironic. You know, us science followers are just blindly believing stories! You failed to provide evidence of anything I asked for, yet you claim objective evidence.. I'm not stunned. I knew the argument was going to head this way the entire time. You indeed have a religiously motivated worldview, whether you realize it or not. You have gotten extremely desperate in your responses and only look to argue insignificant details, rather than main points. Read my last post again, and answer my questions. No I'm not looking for one word answers with semantics traps. How many times have I asked for the objective evidence now?

You didn't debunk my inference, you denied it.

You didn't provide any mechanism for intelligent design.

You didn't provide your definition and criteria for digital info.

edit on 5-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Matter existing in the universe was a side effect of probability going wrong once again the universe tries to straighten it out by creating space between universes spreading the matter out over further and further distances.


This entire statement wreaks of something that was just pulled out of a truck stop toilet, no offense. But I'll admit, it could very well be me...

So would you please explain what exactly a "side effect of probability going wrong" actually means and how that specifically applies to the emergence/existence of matter? (be careful of what you say lest being labeled a creationist
)


And here's the scary part life itself oops another accident of probability,...


Again, and I'm sorry, but please explain.

What exactly is an "accident of probability"? Where do you derive this term from? I didn't realize that probability had accidents, so I'm curious to learn more... Is this a by-product of conditional probability statistics that I might be unaware of?


...but that means the universe is trying to kill us. But on the positive note were still hanging in there. And we have probability helping us out so in the end who knows whats going to happen


It seems you're misguiding folks with claims re: probability that, to me, sound like you're just making up...

So all that spew disguised as rhetoric leads you to the belief that "the universe is trying to kill us", like some kind of boogie monster, and that we're just an accident of probability gone wrong, or something, but that probability will ultimately save the day. Is that right?


Well, I would tend to believe the exact opposite of that entire statement. The universe gave us a great planet to live on, in a nice solar system, in a quiet part of the galaxy. It gave us water, and an atmosphere that allows us to breathe air, that keeps us warm and comfy and protected from the sun. Which by the way was also a nice gift from our universe. And above all else it gave us consciousness to realize all of it.

This all points to something that's trying to foster and protect life, not kill it. But again, it could just be me.

edit on 5-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Thanks for the post! I think where people tend to stray from the intelligent source idea is where uncertainty begins. People like to stay in a comfort zone, and inside ideas that are less abstract. While confronting the intelligent source idea one must except that it is not graspable. You can only brush its surface in a very minute way. It is easy to argue against a religious deity which is where most debunkers I have seen remain in... but when arguing against cosmic intelligence itself...well...that's just more of a foreign concept.

I think your argument is a good one despite what some people might think. I don't think people who argue against it realize how thin of a thread our reality lies on. Sure you can argue how certain aspects fall into place...but as an example...how about our consciousness? I think unless you have tripped to the point of freaking out, you don't realize how we are blessed with peace.

...just my two cents.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
After pondering the subject of "intelligent design" for a while, I have reached the conclusion that it is a misnomer to begin with. It seems science has been overcoming many of the inherent flaws in the design, with some success, for quite some time. Perhaps one day they will be able to "redesign" certain aspects to remove such flaws. The links below will give a rough idea of what I mean, though only the tip of a very large iceberg and only for one species.

en.wikipedia.org...

simple.wikipedia.org...(alphabetical_list)

health.nih.gov...

simple.wikipedia.org...

So perhaps the title should be "limited intelligence design (with lots of inherent flaws)" ? Supposing we were designed by a race of evolved pink intergalactic grasshoppers who evolved somewhere else, this might explain the mistakes, but leave us with the question, how did they get here?

If we are to believe that some omniscient intelligence was responsible, it doesn't look good. This would mean it was purposely designed with such flaws and could only lead to one conclusion....."evil design".

Perhaps we could straddle the fence....."design by a limited and/or evil intelligence"?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
In view of the below, it would also make our "designer", while limited in intelligence and possibly evil, also rather extravagant. Less so if the idea was to "design" a black hole generator, because then at least most of the 0.00001% of the universe that isn't radiation filled vacuum has this potential.

Perhaps the designer of the universe is quite pleased that his black hole generator is progressing and doesn't even know we are here? That would explain much. It might be less than possible to even find us, it could require a fluke somewhere in the order of picking the first three places in every horse race on earth for the next million years. I learned such valid mathematical concepts of "taking numbers out of thin air" from creationist websites. Similar valid concepts posit that minute semiconductor junctions, when certain voltages are applied, along with magnetic storage mediums etc. run machines that are based on logic (basically o=no, 1 =yes) and can in fact, be programmed. A careful study of such man made sytems reveals that they didn't arise naturally and don't reproduce. In fact, all such man made systems seem man made and thus are programmed with logic derived from intelligence. This startling discovery can infer another startling, impeccably logical and inescapable conclusion (after enough big words/hot air/woo) that biology=god did it.

Thus it also becomes obvious, that we will never be short of a pretty butterfly to ride on, amongst the puffy pink clouds, in our new age christian heaven. In fact seriously ill people with abnormal brain function have told us so. They have letters in their title, which further makes it all scientifical and stuff.

Though I digress..... it seems that we must now remove the "intelligent design" misnomer from such discussion and, I'm sure you will all agree, we must now call it .............

"extravagant/wasteful design by a limited and/or evil intelligence".


[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

John W Loftus



edit on 5-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 

Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

I always enjoy your posts, please continue to write. Of course, I have my disagreements and questions, but that doesn't matter a bit.

It seems you have two complaints about God. (That is so much easier and congenial to write than Intelligent Designer)

One, He's wasteful.

Two, He's evil.

I agree that there is a lot of matter that isn't useful to any kind of life we know. But surely there are possible explanations.

Perhaps it's useful to forms of life we don't know. Perhaps it will be useful to us at some time in the future. Perhaps it served it's purpose at some time in the past. We don't, and probably never will, be able to pass on it's "Usefulness."

Besides, isn't it a bit unfair to claim that the lack of life supporting material is evidence that there is no God, when, if the universe were full of life and helpful material, we would argue that that proves life is just natural and that is evidence there is no God? It seems unfair to want it both ways.

A similar problem comes about with the claim He is evil because there are flaws in the life and universe we know. Again, there are other possible explanations.

The original Creation was perfect, and some crummy Snake in the grass threw a monkey wrench into the works. Perhaps we did something ourselves to create the difficulties. We all know about pollution, radiation, and bad diet. What might we have done in the past?

Also, how do we know it's a bad design done intentionally? What's the current status on the appendix, is it necessary or useless? I don't bother to keep track of this on a day to day basis. As noted above, we can't say it was a bad designer unless we admit the existence of a God who created everything.

Where does the idea of "evil" come from? It can only exist in comparison to "good." So with an evil , there must be a good. Is it hard to believe that the good is God?

For these and other reasons, I can't bring myself to agree with your closing words:

it seems that we must now remove the "intelligent design" misnomer from such discussion and, I'm sure you will all agree, we must now call it "extravagant/wasteful design by a limited and/or evil intelligence".
No, we don't.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Here's a very interesting paper which talks about the potential for an infinite amount of phenomena, existing as consciousness. It was translated from Portuguese:

English translation

Original Portuguese version

Basically what it describes is that the math behind any phenomena that exists must have been predetermined. It makes it close to impossible to refute the existence of an intelligent creator.


I realise the op has probably left this thread. Though I was hoping the link might have helped to make the assertions less of an argument from ignorance. Though perhaps there is some error with my browser, perhaps by "paper" it was inferred that it could fit on one small bit of paper? Perhaps the link is broken?

The link looks like an even worse, unsubstantiated argument from ignorance. I wonder what is wrong with "I don't know". Or realising creationism is based on a belief?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
"extravagant/wasteful design by a limited and/or evil intelligence".


[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

John W Loftus



Nice try, but your quote is flawed



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thanks Charles.

If you see those posts as somehow containing faulty logic, I would agree. It wasn't meant to be taken completely seriously, as much as a counter argument containing a little humour and sarcasm (hopefully not too much) and based on similar logic I find among creationists.

Really (IMO) all such arguments that attempt to draw definite conclusions either for or against (in a scientific sense) seem so far, to be illogical. I don't see science as arguing against ID, as much as not finding anything which would necessarily require such an explanation, as yet. Therefore, at this stage, making the topic largely irrelevant (in a scientific sense).

There is a wonderful notion attributed to Socrates, that basically says that ignorance (as in, lack of knowledge) shouldn't be considered unusual or the main problem, in fact we seem to exist largely in ignorance. This realisation of ignorance itself seems a pre requisite starting point, before real knowledge can be sought. It's when we are ignorant even of our own ignorance as a starting point...when we think we know.....that could make it a position from which there is no hope of recovery.

I sometimes wonder if such arguments haven't overlooked this first step.

If the knowledge of what he "didn't know" is what Socrates claimed set him apart from other wise men, rather than what he "knew", it'll do me at this stage. It's is only when people try to make their belief valid science that I have issues with it. The arguments (possibly based on genuine personal/inner experience and knowledge) don't amount to genuine science IMO, instead always seem to amount to....."god/creator of the gaps".

Though I don't say that inner experience should necessarily be ignored. I can even see the possibilty that, if there is a fundamental force/reason for existence, it might be possible to have personal relationship with it. In fact I once found myself in agreement with a staunch christian when exploring the possible ultimate reason for existence. Though the difference being that I only saw it as a possibility. One that, from feeble and limited personal experience (unsubstantiated anecdote being the worst thing to base any scientific claims on, to begin with) would also make our intuitive, limited logic that claims understanding of such a thing (that could itself be precursor to logic, or beyond logic) a bit silly from this perspective. Also one that (for me at least), precludes any notions of god in the anthropomorphic sense, as a meddler who could care less about us.....and more of a force in line with Spinoza's god.

So, there may well be a creator. Though it's not unreasonable, if this concept is put forward as being valid scientifically, it has the basis of such claims scrutinised. Which is where they fall short, IMO at least.


edit on 6-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Nice try, but your quote is flawed


Fair enough, I can see where such observations could be considered incomplete.....dare I ask why you think so?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 

Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

You're a heck of a guy (girl?) and I'm glad you're a member.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement, we certainly agree that this blasted internet is no place to show subtle expressions or tone of voice.

My nearly universal position (and a rather bland one at that) is that there will never be proof or disproof of that which is outside of nature, simply because of the necessary limitations of our sensors and measuring equipment.

There is evidence pointing both ways, and arguments to be made on either side. In my case, I find the evidence for Intelligent Design more compelling, but I would never claim it's proved. Nor would I try to prove it to anyone else.

All we can do is gather evidence and provide it to searchers (while being searchers ourselves). That, and make sure they're thinking straight. You do a fine job.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You said evidence was presented its 1 guys opinion he presented no proof of his hypothesis. He just made a philosophical argument. I could do this as well I'm convinced god must hate socks or why elsE would he keep making them disappear in my dryer? See you can make a hypothesis about anything problem is you have to test it. In physics we can explain how galaxy's stars planet formed not by a god but through the 4 fundamental forces argue there's structure in the universe and must be created by god is silly there is no other way the universe can be. The universe does what it does because it can't do anything else.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


We'll not really appropriate for here but when the universe was first created matter should have been annihilated by anti mater literally a big bang then a poof its gone.However there was a slight fluctuation that allowed matter to survive was bound to happen eventually in the vastness of space time more universes would shrink into nothingness then would actually start acceleration. If you are truly interested in it there's some good conversations in the science forum or start a thread and we can discuss.However we are here by accident a perfectly balanced universe can't create matter.

As far as the universe if it wasn't trying to kill us then how come in the vastness of the universe we can't survive in 99.9999 percent of it. To make matters worse 75 percent of our planet is water again limiting our space. And even on land areas such as desserts which is inhospitable. We are consantly be bombarded with radiation which is slowly killing us. And if that's not bad enough Eventually even the sun we depend on to sustain life will eventually destroy are home. Doesn't sound to me the universe wants us here since we will eventually be evicted. Oh and one more thing we went off into beliefs for a moment no one stated it as fact so relax its called having fun


edit on 6/6/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

I just can't resist. Maybe a few more smiley faces, mocking laughter and denial will help your obfuscation. The only thing you have debunked are your own strawman versions while twisting of my words.

Here is my argument in one line. Lets focus on this one line shall we?

Inference to the only known cause.

No syllogism required, just pure empirical truth.

To "debunk" it you need to demonstrate a cause for semiosis. No amount of smiley faces or just repeating that you have debunked it eliminates the fact that semiosis needs explanation and only one known cause exists. All of your twisting and turning amounts to is just denial. Anyone can easily see that.

The fact you get so defensive and react the way you do is very telling.
edit on 6-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join