Scientific Quandary- or Logical Devil's Advocate

Post Reply New Topic

words like "before" can be tricky when discussing the universe.....if the universe or anything in it could be said to be infinite, then a word like before becomes irrelevant. linear time sort of becomes irrelevant. if something is infinite it has no beginning as well as no end, so how can something come before it? what if it is continuous cycles of big bangs, going on into infinity and somehow ending where they began? maybe time is not linear at all, but ultimately cyclical? and the hub of that wheel = god.

I would think it would prove otherwise, for if god is defined as supernatural, then an argument for god would have to prove that the supernatural is necessary. If the supernatural is not necessary, then we can accept pure naturalism, which would include atheism.

Well, what you are promoting is a variant of the teleological argument, and your argument is actually an argument that the natural needs the supernatural. "the idea that such a system as the universe could randomly and spontaneously "pop" into existence in any way is sort of ludicrous, in my mind. i just can't see that as logical." You call the idea of a natural universe without a guiding force to be "ludicrous", which would fall into my line of arguments.

So, if that is your argument, then I don't think our theological ideas necessarily disagree on this matter, we just phrase them differently. Am I getting you right? I don't want to speak for you mistakenly.

That is true, however, I *think* I used that correctly. However, to rephrase that, if time has no beginning, then the big bang cannot mark the beginning of time, this would mean that there was a causal chain that was prior to the big bang, the lack of beginning would mean that this causal chain stretched infinitely before the big bang. This goes against the 3rd premise of my argument. That is not to say that this is necessarily wrong, there are a number of people who have attacked the cosmological argument on this ground, but it would lead to some question. A continuous cycle of big bangs would be an infinite chain, and some have postulated this, I don't see how this leads to god, but we probably use the term differently.

why must a fulfillment of 4 be a deity?



I challenge things that are faulty or illogical. I do not sit nearby and accept things that are taught to me based on the idea that many people believe it, or one person doesn't want me to question them. It is why I got out of biology and into math. Evolutionary theory is not advanced enough to be viable, though it appears that it has advanced enough to be falsely considered infallible by a majority.




I can define god as a thing that exists, just because I want to. In order for me to accept your argument I would have to agree with your definition. There are many designed things that are not used for their intended purpose, or that were made by accident, or that were impulsively made on the spot without preconception. And those are man-made things. And I do not have enough evidence to assume that designed things are preconceived, intended, or purposed or contrived. You have not provided a valid argument that they are.



so you do not need to define words in a logical argument when the entire argument rests on the definition of the terms used. Does design necessarily mean that a designer must have intellect, mind or will? I have not seen evidence suggesting so. and what do you define as intelligent? what is the cutoff?



you have not shown that a thing demonstrating irreducible complexity cannot occur through natural means. So you have not proven that a thing demonstrating irreducible complexity implies intention and preconception.



5 is an application of a faulty premise and 6 relies on 5. Just because the average person does not find fault with an argument... does not mean that fault does not exist in the argument. In fact, of all the things in the argument... the only statement that makes any logical sense... is number 4 and that is...

according to the definition of irreducibly complex "the characteristic of a system of well-matched, mutually interacting parts performing a specific function, in which the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning". The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex. That is the only statement that makes any logical sense, and is demonstrable.

Evolutionary theory has many gaps, just like the rest of our biological knowledge. Given the evidence we have, it's the best we've got, just the same as every other scientific theory that's currently mainstream. Biologists often have a short temper with people questioning evolution just because they've wasted too much time being hassled by idiot YECs.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this; 1 is tautologous. It isn't "designed" if it doesn't exhibit such properties as given; whether or not this is a satisfactory notion of "designed" isn't necessary to the argument.

no no, not necessary.....divine. icing on the cake. beyond. above consideration. it's not that there has to be the supernatural....it just is. it does not need a reason, hence no necessity. teleology implies a final outcome, a resolution to all things....that describes something finite. i am talking about the infinite. it's purpose is to exist perpetually. no "ultimate" anything. perpetuation.

I found that things in the textbook are not accurate. as many textbooks still contain faulty theories including Haeckel's embryo drawings.

Here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3mgsyh.asp

According to physics professor John Hubisz the errors include:

* A map showing the equator running through Texas and Florida, when it's actually about 1,500 miles south.
* Details of the Statue of Liberty, explaining her "bronze outer structure." The statue is copper.
* Periodic tables not updated years after new elements have been added.
* Chemistry formulas and physics laws that are so "simplified" they are completely wrong.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200100 ... _sys.shtml

http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html


As per the Miller Experiment

"Some four billion years ago the Earth's atmosphere consisted mainly of water vapor, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun bombarded the seas, forming complex organic molecules that eventually acquired the ability to reproduce themselves. Free oxygen formed by the dissociation of water vapor gave rise to the "ozone blanket" a layer of oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere that screened the emerging life forms from lethal ultraviolet." Roger Lewin, Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution (Smithsonian: 1982), p. 93

Today only living organisms (and organic chemists) can create such compounds. Their synthesis requires special conditions, notably the absence of oxygen." Linda Gamlin and Gail Vines, The Evolution of Life (Oxford University Press: 1987) pp. 143, 144

"Today we know that the gases Miller placed in the flask do not match the atmosphere of early Earth. So we cannot say that life began in a manner similar to Miller's experiment." Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), pp. 14, 15

not counting that several of the gases used in the Miller experiment would have dispersed into space if not for a .... ozone layer.

here are a few more

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute ... -pond.html

conversely you can find studies for and against it. Conclusion is: no one knows.

I have seen suggestions that the universe is not infinite in the way we understand infinite. Trying to remember, but it was in one of Hawking's book.

I argue with the concept that evolution is fact. Not that it isn't possible. I could care less if they do not like to prove themselves. Just don't pretend something is more than it actually is. That is all I want. Honesty.. pure, brutal, naked honesty.

aren't these american, though (the textbooks, i mean)? our university standards can be quite different from yours, if i'm not mistaken.

our sun was younger and producing more UV radiation 3 billion years ago. there could still have been little O2 in the air, i mean this was before photosynthesis....i'm pretty sure they still believe it was the early photosynthetic prokaryotes that were responsible for O2 eventually becoming a blanket in the atmosphere (ozone) along with the sun aging and less UV radiation reaching the earth's surface.

I realize that 1 is a tautology that attempts to define designed. I am just saying that I don't necessarily agree with the definition, as I don't find it satisfactory. You can say it is design if it exhibits properties and it is not design if it does not. But in reality, what if there are actually designed things that do not exhibit those qualities or non-designed things that exhibit those qualities. The definition fails to apply to conditions that might exist.

I would need to see textbooks from other countries. But from the studies I have seen, there is a lack of consensus on exactly what the early atmosphere was composed of, and no real way to be sure. That and many American textbooks are written by scientists from other countries. Some are from Oxford press, which is an English publishing company (I think).

also your last quote there from a text is 1997....my textbook was published in 2004, Pearson-Benjamin Cummings

They're human, they get frustrated with obnoxious people, sometimes that gets taken out on people with honest questions. As for evolution being fact, we have observed speciation on numerous occasions, and we have also watched adaptation occur. The rest is just unhammered-out details.

Because deities are not finite or contingent, where as everything that exists is usually finite and contingent, the definitions of the terms probably stems back to some Aquinas stuff that I don't want to dig through, and frankly, I admitted that one philosopher claimed that a 0 dimensional point would satisfy the cosmological proof for God, but such a point is not the same thing as the big bang.


I am not calling it infallible, I just mean that as a body of knowledge, it is developed enough to where I'd be careful not to challenge it too hastily. It is not as if I could never see it as possible to challenge, I would just be careful. As for viability, anything is viable, not all viable paths will prove themselves true.


Umm.... the first issue of "use" is irrelevant. Made by accident is also different from design as well. Impulsively made on the spot is also not "design". Those things are man-made perhaps, but by that definition, if you smash a rock to pieces, it could be designed as well. The definition is correct, your concept of "designed" is questionable and not correct by the dictionary at all.

de-sign (di-zin)v. de-signed, de-sign-ing, de-signs.v. tr. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


No, because the argument DOESN'T rest on the definitions of the terms used, and that is actually pretty plain to see. The argument actually rests upon premise 4, that things that could not arise naturally do exist. Design necessarily means that the designer has those things, because design demands the preconception and all of those things, and the sets of things cannot exist without each other. The matter isn't *EVIDENCE* it is *DEFINITION* and defining something as "intelligent" is hardly necessary for the argument as all that is necessary is that this thing can act with purpose, with preconception, etc, which means that rocks fail.


Umm.... I don't have to, the definition "irreducible complexity" essentially MEANS that it cannot occur through natural means for the sake of the argument, as the notion is that nothing natural exists that could lead to the existence of these things. Because of this, intention and preconception would be necessary, as otherwise we are dealing with natural processes.


This isn't a matter of average people, shiggily, your fault-finding is terrible, and most of the things you are putting fault on, are the literal definitions of the terms used or matters of ultimately little consequence, in one case you were doing a clear injustice to a dictionary's definition, and in other cases it seems that the inferential leap was too small to justify fault-finding. In any case, the definition of irreducible complexity varies some depending upon the author and I think that the notion "cannot emerge from natural systems" likely exists within one of the books you pulled that definition from, and actually that point that you considered demonstrable can actually be hard to demonstrate, which is why the ID use of the argument is often considered to be an argument from ignorance, as some original arguments are now considered refuted.

In any case, this is not even an argument I fashioned myself, but rather one I saw as serviceable and thus scraped off of wikipedia, but I still do not think you've found fault with it.