The stumbling block for atheists.

[dad]

Does it look that way?? By the way did you actually do physics at school?

So it seems you are all over the map here, talking about Islam, and whatever.

Now it is 'physics'. Not sure how that is topical, but I did some learning in school, and some later.

 

[Michael]

You are missing the point.

My point is that awareness does not always mean there will be a response.

FYI, that was ultimately my same point as it relates to demonstrating awareness as it relates to Panentheism.

I'd have to say that is probably simply a limit of "observation". It's possible that we may not be able to observe a response even if something is "aware". Then again, it's possible that all sorts of things exist that we simply cannot "observe", at least not directly.

 

[Freodin]

FYI, that was ultimately my same point as it relates to demonstrating awareness as it relates to Panentheism.

I'd have to say that is probably simply a limit of "observation". It's possible that we may not be able to observe a response even if something is "aware". Then again, it's possible that all sorts of things exist that we simply cannot "observe", at least not directly.

But if you really think that, you must realize that this also means that this might not exist.

All you have is make-belief.

 

[Michael]

Because you intentionally chose things that would fit to life forms, without explaining why those things would actually indicate intelligent design.

Since you felt I was somehow stacking the deck, I asked you to do it yourself instead of me doing it. I simply suggested a *goal*, and you could figure out how we might get it done in terms of your "design".

The only goals were wide spread distribution of life in various forms.

Because you don't seem to understand that evolution has no long term goals.

Evolution does not work by going, "Oh, if I evolve such and such a feature, it will be handy in 20,000 generations."

I'm not asking you how evolutionary theory works, nor I'm I suggesting that anything I'm asking you to do is related to EV theory.

I'm asking you to start with a different premise and a *different* theory, and design something to fill the universe with a variety of living things.

Yeah, answer my question.

If I come across a particular thing, what can I look for that will tell me that it was designed by some intelligent entity?

I just asked you to ask yourself that same question when I asked you to 'intelligently' design living things. I tried to answer that exact question for you, and you immediately objected to my answer. That's why I asked you to answer it yourself.

I'm a little mystified as to how to proceed if you won't accept my answer, and you won't provide your own intelligent design parameters.

Why do you even think that can only come about through the action of some intelligent entity?

I did not insist to you that it had to come about one way or another. I'm simply asking your to look at both options.

All you need is for the thing to be able to make copies of itself, and also for that copying process to be imperfect.

And "awareness", whatever that might be.

I'm not asking for evidence of God, I'm asking for a way to determine if something has been designed or not.

The way most "theories/hypotheses" work in science, is they begin with some premise. That premise is then used to make a series of "predictions" that hopefully can be "tested" in some way or another.

If you begin with a "premise" of intelligent design, and you set a limited number of likely probable "goals", it's possible to "predict" what you might need to "design" into your life spreading agent.

I tried to answer that question for you and you accused me of stacking the deck, and/or not providing you with a prediction that is somehow unique to 'intelligent design'. The second requirement is not used in science, and you don't seem to like my answer to the question.

 

[Michael]

But if you really think that, you must realize that this also means that this might not exist.

How does that possibility not apply to all the "unseen" entities of cosmology or particle physics hypotheses? Presumably any hypothetical entity could not exist.

I think however that you'd tend to agree that awareness exists in some forms, if not all forms. At most we might underestimate the awareness of something specific in terms of form, but as long as that awareness expresses itself in some way, we should be able to observe signs of awareness from the object in question.

All you have is make-belief.

Are you complaining about how every "hypothesis" begins? You don't think that human beings just "make-believe" in SUSY particle physics theories?

 

[Michael]

Of course He gave us the ability to adapt and evolve. That doesn't mean life was not created first.

I personally believe that life was "created" by God dad. I also accept the premise of genetic adaptation over time (evolutionary theory) as do most Christians.

False comparison, physics are great here and now.

Dad, I've tried to have this conversation with you before, but I simply cannot agree with your *assumption* that physics here and now was different in the past than it is right now. You have zero evidence to support such a "belief". You also refuse to externally crosscheck your personal and potentially *fallible* interpretation of a single book. You're a victim of a feedback loop that begins with the premise that your interpretation of all things is "infallible".

 

[Freodin]

How does that possibility not apply to all the "unseen" entities of cosmology or particle physics hypotheses? Presumably any hypothetical entity could not exist.

What kind of consequences do you think this should have on our behaviour... especially regarding "religion" and "science"?

Make your "hypothesis"... and then simply go on acting as if it was true?

Potentially, it could be that dad's version of a "different past" was correct. It wouldn't conform with anything that we know... but, hey, it could be "unobservable".

But you seem to feel the need to express your disagreement with him. Why?

In the same way, dark matter, dark energy, and all the "supernatural" (as you call it) stuff of the standard cosmologly that you disagree with... it could all exist.

And yet you feel the need to ridicule people who hold to this hypothesis and try to validate it. Why?

I think however that you'd tend to agree that awareness exists in some forms, if not all forms. At most we might underestimate the awareness of something specific in terms of form, but as long as that awareness expresses itself in some way, we should be able to observe signs of awareness from the object in question.

I think that you define "awareness" in any way you like and need to support your own ideas... and discard it, or redefine it if it doesn't suit you anymore. And you extrapolate from that shifting base to whatever you need.

Are you complaining about how any "hypotheses" begins? You don't think that human beings just "make-believe" in SUSY particle physics theories?

I think you contradict right now what you wrote earlier. After all, a prime ingredient in a "hypothesis" is the verifiability and falsifiability.

But how could you do that, if you can fall back on "well, maybe it exists but we cannot observe it" excuse any time you want to?

That is the difference between "make-belief" and a hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

What kind of consequences do you think this should have on our behaviour... especially regarding "religion" and "science"?

Hmm. Well, I think there should be "preference" for empirical physics, but neither science nor religion has ever restricted itself to things that show up in controlled lab experiments.

Make your "hypothesis"... and then simply go on acting as if it was true?

How is that behavior any different than QM definitions of gravity which rely upon a hypothetical 'graviton'? How is SUSY theory any different?

Potentially, it could be that dad's version of a "different past" was correct. It wouldn't conform with anything that we know... but, hey, it could be "unobservable".

True. I wouldn't necessarily favor a theory that defies known laws of physics however, nor am I requiring anything of the sort with respect to "awareness".

But you seem to feel the need to express your disagreement with him. Why?

Probably because I like discussing many topics with many individuals?

In the same way, dark matter, dark energy, and all the "supernatural" (as you call it) stuff of the standard cosmologly that you disagree with... it could all exist.

And yet there are *purely empirical* alternatives to each of those claims, and some of those claims defy the known laws of physics.

There are simply "better' (not breaking physical laws) explanations to choose from.

And yet you feel the need to ridicule people who hold to this hypothesis and try to validate it. Why?

For starters, any hypothesis that has to begin by grossly violating the known laws of physics doesn't really have much appeal to me personally. Are you willing to automatically jump on dad's "different state past" bandwagon without some supporting evidence?

I think that you define "awareness" in any way you like and need to support your own ideas... and discard it, or redefine it if it doesn't suit you anymore. And you extrapolate from that shifting base to whatever you need.

How would you personally define it any differently?

I think you contradict right now what you wrote earlier. After all, a prime ingredient in a "hypothesis" is the verifiability and falsifiability.

Huh? Awareness is known to exist in nature. I may not be able to observe it in action in every single possible physical form, but I can observe it in *many* different physical forms. There's nothing 'supernatural' about awareness. There will always be some amount of limitation related to "observation", including any observation that is likely to require more than a single lifetime to actually observe.

But how could you do that, if you can fall back on "well, maybe it exists but we cannot observe it" excuse any time you want to?

The clear empirical difference is that I'm not introducing something 'unseen in nature" into the discussion.

That is the difference between "make-belief" and a hypothesis.

You'll first have to convince me that QM defintions of gravity, and SUSY theory are not 'make-believe" by your same definition.

 

[dad]

I personally believe that life was "created" by God dad.

Yes I think you told us that before. How the creation of man was actually from a long evolution of animals, rather than a specific creation of man and woman by God.

I also accept the premise of genetic adaptation over time (evolutionary theory) as do most Christians.

I accept genetic muttation also, but nothing mutated until we were first created. I do not accept mutation as the creator of life. I think that view is a mutated one.

Dad, I've tried to have this conversation with you before, but I simply cannot agree with your *assumption* that physics here and now was different in the past than it is right now.

Since science doesn't know believe whatever you like.

You have zero evidence to support such a "belief".

Science has zero evidence either way. That leave the bible that you think says man came from an animal womb. Not much use discussing that with you. MIght as well discuss Aesop's fables.

You also refuse to externally crosscheck your personal and potentially *fallible* interpretation of a single book.

I trust Jesus did that for us when He said that it was all good as gold.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I accept genetic muttation also, but nothing mutated until we were first created. I do not accept mutation as the creator of life. I think that view is a mutated one.

Obviously -- you can't have mutation without something to mutate.

I trust Jesus did that for us when He said that it was all good as gold.

Ever stop to ask yourself what's so good about gold?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ever stop to ask yourself what's so good about gold?

I have, and it has many useful properties. It is easy to shape, and rare enough to make it an ideal form of currency. It is highly resistant to oxidation and corrosion, as well as being highly conductive, making it useful in electrical contact surfaces.

 

[MissRowy]

So it seems you are all over the map here, talking about Islam, and whatever.

Now it is 'physics'. Not sure how that is topical, but I did some learning in school, and some later.

Actually dad I am doing what you often do on a regular basis. How does it feel now to be lead all over the place? I think I have made my point.

 

[Kylie]

FYI, that was ultimately my same point as it relates to demonstrating awareness as it relates to Panentheism.

I'd have to say that is probably simply a limit of "observation". It's possible that we may not be able to observe a response even if something is "aware". Then again, it's possible that all sorts of things exist that we simply cannot "observe", at least not directly.

I'd also have to point out that there are things that respond which you would not call aware or alive. Fire responds to different atmospheres. If I decrease the oxygen content, the flame responds by growing smaller.

 

[Kylie]

Since you felt I was somehow stacking the deck, I asked you to do it yourself instead of me doing it.

Yes, you were stacking the deck.

When I asked you to give an example of something that could be used to define "designed", you just give me an example of something life already does.

That's like if I was claiming Fords are better than Toyotas, and you disagreed, you might ask me to give an example of something that makes a car good, and then I said it has Ford written on the grill.

I simply suggested a *goal*, and you could figure out how we might get it done in terms of your "design".

My design? I've never said there was a design.

The only goals were wide spread distribution of life in various forms.

Which evolution by means of natural selection explains perfectly.

I'm not asking you how evolutionary theory works, nor I'm I suggesting that anything I'm asking you to do is related to EV theory.

I'm asking you to start with a different premise and a *different* theory, and design something to fill the universe with a variety of living things.

Apart from making each animal from scratch, I can't really think of anything. And even then, using evolution - a process which will do all the hard work for me - is a better option.

I just asked you to ask yourself that same question when I asked you to 'intelligently' design living things. I tried to answer that exact question for you, and you immediately objected to my answer. That's why I asked you to answer it yourself.

I'm a little mystified as to how to proceed if you won't accept my answer, and you won't provide your own intelligent design parameters.

So you are trying to get me to accept ID by getting me to intelligently design a life form?

I did not insist to you that it had to come about one way or another. I'm simply asking your to look at both options.

Why do you think I haven't?

I've thought about it and rejected it, long before I started discussing it with you. The evidence does not support ID.

And "awareness", whatever that might be.

Care to explain why this is a requirement? Evolution does not require awareness. If you can't even define it, then how can it be essential?

The way most "theories/hypotheses" work in science, is they begin with some premise. That premise is then used to make a series of "predictions" that hopefully can be "tested" in some way or another.

No need to be condescending, using "quote marks" like that.

If you begin with a "premise" of intelligent design, and you set a limited number of likely probable "goals", it's possible to "predict" what you might need to "design" into your life spreading agent.

Again, I will point out that evolution has no goals. Life does not need to plan ahead the way you seem to be implying.

I tried to answer that question for you and you accused me of stacking the deck, and/or not providing you with a prediction that is somehow unique to 'intelligent design'. The second requirement is not used in science, and you don't seem to like my answer to the question.

Remember my car analogy? Instead of saying, "It has Ford written on the grill," in an effort to define what makes a car good, I could say instead, "It gets above average fuel efficiency." That is something that is NOT stacking the deck.

Now, how about you give me an example of something like that. I will apply your example to see if the water bottle sitting on my desk was designed, since I know for sure it was, and so any definition of design you give must apply to that.

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, that must be the cause why all the ID proponents are non-religious.


The ID arguments don't argue for ID. They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. This concept is usually shortened to "deity"... except by people who want to introduce their respective deity into science, but know that they are not legally allowed to. Thus: liars for [deity of choice].

Merry Christmas!

The ID argument is valid regardless of any atheist aversion to either religion or an intelligent designer.

BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas. It stopped being merry when I learned that my parents had gone to extreme trouble to foist the Santa lie on me. Then it became a symbol of their untrustworthiness. So thanks but no thanks.

 

[Freodin]

The ID argument is valid regardless of any atheist aversion to either religion or an intelligent designer.

BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas. It stopped being merry when I learned that my parents had gone to extreme trouble to foist the Santa lie on me. Then it became a symbol of their untrustworthiness. So thanks but no thanks.

Are you feeling well?

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Please stick on topic to the original topic only and watch out for goading. Thanks.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Michael]

I'd also have to point out that there are things that respond which you would not call aware or alive. Fire responds to different atmospheres. If I decrease the oxygen content, the flame responds by growing smaller.

I don't recall suggesting that it would impossible for movement/response to occur without awareness.

 

[HenryM]

Why are Christians here so extensively arguing with atheists? Just tell them "Ok". They don't want your reason or guidance to know God anyway. You are not helping them by engaging in a "debate", you are just making them tie their knot more tightly. And I wonder if arguing with non-responsive "partner" creates more harm than good for people who read such exchange.

Not to mention that people who come on Christian site and leave thousands upon thousands messages against God are special cases indeed.

 

[Speedwell]

Why are Christians here so extensively arguing with atheists? Just tell them "Ok". They don't want your reason or guidance to know God anyway. You are not helping them by engaging in a "debate", you are just making them tie their knot more tightly. And I wonder if arguing with non-responsive "partner" creates more harm than good for people who read such exchange.

Not to mention that people who come on Christian site and leave thousands upon thousands messages against God are special cases indeed.

It's not about God, Henry, or Christians versus atheists. It's about "Bible-believing" Christians and their political agenda versus everybody else, theists and non-theists alike.