Order without Intelligence

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Atheists have invented multiverses to try to explain away a finely tuned universe that allows life to exist. They now are trying to say there are millions of universes and eventually some universe was going to "get it right".
The universe is so finely tuned for life that only more than 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of it is vacuum and frigid. That 00.000000000000000000000000000000001% is wery inviting and totally fine-tuned for life, though. :wave:

Heck... even Earth is so finely tuned that only 28.89% of it is land. And what's even more fine-tuned is that despite the fact that the earth's surface is 71.11% water, fresh water is only about 3% of that water AND of that about 69% of it is frozen in continental and mountain glaciers! ;)

Totally finely tuned, am I right?
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Same thing that guides the little cornflakes settling to the bottom of the box.
Gravitation or magic?

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, writer, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

Why do you find it so hard to see that order can arise without intelligent intervention...?
Because Isaac Newton's hypothesis of gravitation specifically replies upon God, divine intervention, and miracle works.

Without God, gravitation is impossible.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

Appeal to authority?
Ad hominem fallacy?

Why would a neurosurgeon know about how codes and machines are formed?
Why wouldn't he?

If a neurosurgeon says 2+2=4 do you automatically conclude that 2+2=5?

And your idea of DNA and life being comparible to codes and machines is not really accurate, you know.
LOL. Good one.
 
Upvote 0

Molal

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Supporter
Feb 9, 2007
6,080
2,288
United States of America
✟38,405.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Gravitation or magic?

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, writer, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909


Because Isaac Newton's hypothesis of gravitation specifically replies upon God, divine intervention, and miracle works.

Without God, gravitation is impossible.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710


Ad hominem fallacy?


Why wouldn't he?

If a neurosurgeon says 2+2=4 do you automatically conclude that 2+2=5?


LOL. Good one.

Why do you consider the words of a 1600's man to be relevant to todays discussion on gravitational theory? It would appear that your reliance on such dated quotations leads you to believe they are also applicable to today's life. Indeed, are you an alchemist - divining the aetheral realm to transmutate base metals into gold? Such was the alchemist theories in the 1600's.

They were men trying to understand the elemental nature of the physical world; conflated in their ideologies, they supposed supernatural forces for simple physical processes.

If a neurosurgeon said 2+2=4, I would congratulate him for his mathematical ability. If he suggested it equaled 5, I would correct him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟22,024.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ad hominem fallacy?
If you keep using the fallacy of authority and people call you out on it, Its NOT and ad hominem. In order to make a ad hominem fallacy against you, one would have to make an argument towards YOU that is unrelated to the argument. Saying your quotes are irreverent and rely on the fallacy of authority, that is not an ad hominem as it is addressing the improper use of the quotes your posting.

Thanks for trying though.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Why do you consider the words of a 1600's man to be relevant to todays discussion on gravitational theory?
Probably because universal gravitation is Newton's 17th century creationist myth.

It would appear that your reliance on such dated quotations leads you to believe they are also applicable to today's life.
I do not believe universal gravitation applied to the universe at any moment in history let alone today.

Indeed, are you an alchemist - divining the aetheral realm to transmutate base metals into gold? Such was the alchemist theories in the 1600's.
Alchemy is one of the only things that was scientific about the 17th century.

"Do you really believe that the sciences would ever have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by magicians, alchemists, astrologers, and witches whose promises and pretensions first had to create a thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and forbidden powers?" -- Friedrich W. Nietzsche, philosopher, The Gay Science, Aphorism 300, 1882

"The science in which Newton seems to have been chiefly interested, and on which he spent most of his time was alchemy." -- Arthur S. Eddington, physicist, 1938

"For many centuries scholars thought that chemical elements were stable and could not be transformed. This is why the alchemists were regarded as dreamers, charlatans, or idiots. But in the year 1919 the great English physicist Rutherford sided with the alchemists and transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. That was the day of the vindication of the alchemical doctrine of transmutation." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

They were men trying to understand the elemental nature of the physical world; conflated in their ideologies, they supposed supernatural forces for simple physical processes.
So-called "supernatural" is as real if not more real than natural.

"In fairy land we avoid the word 'law'; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature.' When we are asked why eggs turn into birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned into horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a 'law,' for we do not understand it's general formula." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

If a neurosurgeon said 2+2=4, I would congratulate him for his mathematical ability. If he suggested it equaled 5, I would correct him.
Exactly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CoderHead

Knee Dragger
Aug 11, 2009
1,087
23
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟16,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
They now are trying to say there are millions of universes and eventually some universe was going to "get it right".
I'm not so sure that the common belief is that this universe "got it right." Atheists aren't the ones claiming that the universe was made for life, rather that life has adapted to the universe. Have you seen how much empty space is out there? And do you still claim that the universe was created for humans to live?

Totally finely tuned, am I right?
Absolutely. :doh:

If a neurosurgeon says 2+2=4 do you automatically conclude that 2+2=5?
No, we all had that elementary education and can verify its validity. If, however, a neurosurgeon tried to tell me how to build a graphics processor I'd have to get a second opinion. If a neurosurgeon told me how to operate on a brain, I'd listen.
 
Upvote 0
J

jamesrwright3

Guest
The universe is so finely tuned for life that only more than 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of it is vacuum and frigid. That 00.000000000000000000000000000000001% is wery inviting and totally fine-tuned for life, though. :wave:

Heck... even Earth is so finely tuned that only 28.89% of it is land. And what's even more fine-tuned is that despite the fact that the earth's surface is 71.11% water, fresh water is only about 3% of that water AND of that about 69% of it is frozen in continental and mountain glaciers! ;)

Totally finely tuned, am I right?

Yes, it is finely tuned. The Bible makes no mention of life outside of Earth and we have no evidence there is life outside of Earth. The Creation could be geocentric. Regardless of whether there is life outside of the earth, even the constants in the vacuum need to be just right for the non-living universe to exist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Molal

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Supporter
Feb 9, 2007
6,080
2,288
United States of America
✟38,405.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
Probabaly because universal gravitation is Newton's 17th century creationist myth.


I do not believe universal gravitation applied to the universe at any moment in history let alone today.


Alchemy is one of the only things that was scientific about the 17th century.

"Do you really believe that the sciences would ever have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by magicians, alchemists, astrologers, and witches whose promises and pretensions first had to create a thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and forbidden powers?" -- Friedrich W. Nietzsche, philosopher, The Gay Science, Aphorism 300, 1882

"The science in which Newton seems to have been chiefly interested, and on which he spent most of his time was alchemy." -- Arthur S. Eddington, physicist, 1938

"For many centuries scholars thought that chemical elements were stable and could not be transformed. This is why the alchemists were regarded as dreamers, charlatans, or idiots. But in the year 1919 the great English physicist Rutherford sided with the alchemists and transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. That was the day of the vindication of the alchemical doctrine of transmutation." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971


So-called "supernatural" is as real if not more real than natural.

"In fairy land we avoid the word 'law'; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature.' When we are asked why eggs turn into birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned into horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a 'law,' for we do not understand it's general formula." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909


Exactly.
Thanks for your response.

Based on your response I believe that you have no wish to learn more about the universe inwhich you live, that you fail to understand the scientific method and that you care not for the panoply of evidence set before you.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Thanks for your response.
You're welcome.

Based on your response I believe that you have no wish to learn more about the universe inwhich you live
Belief is a matter of faith.

I believe you have no scientific evidence to support your faith that I don't wish to learn more about the universe.

that you fail to understand the scientific method and that you care not for the panoply of evidence set before you.
I understand the so-called "scientific" method and I see it's mythological nature very clearly.

The so-called "scientific" method requires observation.

Yet gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow have never been observed.

"According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns." -- Stephen Smith, writer, November 2008
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟22,024.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
"According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns." -- Stephen Smith, writer, November 2008
Why do you persist with using this appeal to authority? It is not evidence. It is just a persons opinion for which you share. In order to use science to catch a murderer, must one observe the murder or the suspect?
 
Upvote 0

caustic

Newbie
Jan 1, 2010
21
1
32
Adelaide, Australia
✟7,646.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So who's Stephen Smith?

An appeal to authority works better when the "authority" you're quoting is well known, professionally qualified and has been published in places other than a pseudo-scientific .info site.

As far as I can see most of what you brought up are theories to explain observable phenomena. In this respect they fit perfectly with the scientific method. A phenomenon has been observed, a hypothesis has been made, and scientists are working on proving or disproving these hypothesises. I consider theorising about how things could be explained whilst trying to find evidence to support or reject the theory to be preferable to putting your fingers in your ears and repeating over and over that "God did it"

Black holes of course can be observed through their interaction with other matter, and scientists have identified many candidates for probable black holes. Sagittarius A* for example.

Gravitons and gravitational waves are two possible explanations for the observable phenomenon of gravity. There has been no compelling evidence for either of them thus far.

Dark matter is another explanation of an observable phenomena. That is that galaxies spin in a way that would be impossible if they were only made of light matter.

Dark energy was theorised to explain why the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating.

No neutron stars can't be observed but supernovas can. Mathematically it can be proven that a supernova of the right size and mass would produce a neutron star.

I'd never heard of dark flow, but apparently yes it has been observed. Or rather evidence which supports the theory has been observed.

Touching something is one way of observing it. Looking at photons bouncing of an object is another. Examining its effects on background radiation is yet another.

Yes most of the things you listed are theories that haven't been proven, they're generally considered the best explanations for the phenomena which they try to explain.
 
Upvote 0

gipsy

Newbie
Jan 23, 2009
271
6
✟44,773.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Probably because universal gravitation is Newton's 17th century creationist myth.


I do not believe universal gravitation applied to the universe at any moment in history let alone today.


Alchemy is one of the only things that was scientific about the 17th century.

"Do you really believe that the sciences would ever have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by magicians, alchemists, astrologers, and witches whose promises and pretensions first had to create a thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and forbidden powers?" -- Friedrich W. Nietzsche, philosopher, The Gay Science, Aphorism 300, 1882

"The science in which Newton seems to have been chiefly interested, and on which he spent most of his time was alchemy." -- Arthur S. Eddington, physicist, 1938

"For many centuries scholars thought that chemical elements were stable and could not be transformed. This is why the alchemists were regarded as dreamers, charlatans, or idiots. But in the year 1919 the great English physicist Rutherford sided with the alchemists and transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. That was the day of the vindication of the alchemical doctrine of transmutation." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971


So-called "supernatural" is as real if not more real than natural.

"In fairy land we avoid the word 'law'; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature.' When we are asked why eggs turn into birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned into horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. It is not a 'law,' for we do not understand it's general formula." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

"But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909


Exactly.

Just one short question:
Do you have a mind and opinion of your own, or is quote mining using up all computational power of your brain?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skaloop
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Molal

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Supporter
Feb 9, 2007
6,080
2,288
United States of America
✟38,405.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
You're welcome.


Belief is a matter of faith.

I believe you have no scientific evidence to support your faith that I don't wish to learn more about the universe.


I understand the so-called "scientific" method and I see it's mythological nature very clearly.

The so-called "scientific" method requires observation.

Yet gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow have never been observed.

"According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns." -- Stephen Smith, writer, November 2008
I do appreciate your debate, you have some interesting ideas.

I absolutely agree, belief is a matter of faith. Indeed, Hebrews 11:1 sums it up perfectly:

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

This quote is vitally important to Christians since it defines the very nature of faith. Faith is hope and belief in something that we do not see. This fits in perfectly with your definition of observation.

But your definition of observation is finite in it's extent.

For instance, do humans have a brain? Using your definition of observation, one would suggest that humans do not because we have not seen them directly.

In medicine, doctors use x-rays to observe density differentials within the human body. Clearly, these are not direct observations, yet they enable doctors to make observations about the biological health of the subject (tooth cavities, cancers, etc.)

In the smaller realm, atoms have never been seen by any human, yet we are absolutely certain of their existence. The atomic force microscope allows scientists to image atoms directly. But, they have never been seen.

Electrons have never been seen; however, particle physicists at CERN use them (electrons) to collide with atoms to produce subatomic particles.

Hopefully, you are beginning to see that your definition of observation is limited in scope.

One can observe things through it's effects on other things. These are still observations, they still represent data.
 
Upvote 0