- #36
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.
Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.
Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.
Originally posted by heusdens
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.
Originally posted by Zero
Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existence of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?
But I don't think it is right.2. But this case is a perfect square made of metal. Because I have never seen nature actually do this, I know that the odds of this are rare.
Originally posted by Netme
Once again you cannot answer my question.. How can existence just already be there? The reason why you cannot answer this is because there are no answers. Its much like a trick question that you must answer correctly in order to prove your theory is true. The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
You're missing the point. The proof is rather simple here. All knowledge we have about the world, we acquire through our senses. Sensual knowledge is subjective knowledge. Therefore, all of our knowledge is subjective. The fact that subjective knowledge across a wide range of people is consistent merely suggests an underlying, objective existence, but this objective world cannot be verified, for the same reasons that God cannot be verified. Logically, it is simply impossible to know for sure whether or not an objective world of the nature you describe exists or not.
The fact that we can build devices to detect information beyond our senses (infra red radiation for instance) does not bypass this argument. If you make infra red detecting goggles, the goggles detect information invisible to your senses, and then transform it into information your senses can detect. All knowledge necessarily must pass through the subjective filter of the perceiver; all knowledge is subjective.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.
No, I'm saying just the opposite! I'm saying that unless we can acknowledge things for ourselves, and "truly know," through the faculty of being conscious -- the very thing which "defines" existence itself -- and I don't mean science -- then that's all we would be capable of doing, repeating what someone else has told us. I would recommend reading Zero's thread for a little more clarity on this.Originally posted by megashawn
Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own?
Originally posted by FZ+
A baby wakes up. He looks at a rock say, and he says I have never seen nature do this, so the odds are rare. And therefore concludes the rock was designed.
In effect, you are using limited knowledge to make a judgement on odds as something you consider objective.
In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there.But look at it this way, there is another conclusion that can be made from this.
Or, if multiple cases are found, it can be concluded that:
See, the odds of it occurring by chance aren't that small after all, as the phenomenon has repeated naturally several time.
Well, I remember actually using wood in an example in another thread similar to this one. What if you were walking in the woods and saw little sticks of wood on the ground forming the shape of a perfect circle. You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks. (And I don't think anyone really believes that you would actually think that.)You see, the way we pick one of these is based on our subjective feelings. ie. it's a lot easier to talk about a piece of metal since it reflects our human society. Instead, if you find a piece of wood a queer shape, though it may be true that this shape is unlikely to be repeated, your mental connection of wood and nature disturbs this line of thought.
So all in all, I am saying it is impossible to make such objective judgements of design with our subjective perception.
Hence, back to the box. I seriously would say I don't know, and that chance may or may not have done this. It is up to other evidence, such as context etc to establish if such a designer exists, and hence if the object is designed or just a lucky fluke.
True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way. I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.But if this is your argument then how do we "know" anything? All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.
My point is that seen from a different direction, this is a no win situation. On one hand, we judge that this even is statistically insignificant, and so can be simply a fluke and on the other we consider it to be statistically significant, but then just representing a gap in knowledge.In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there
No. The trouble is not quite in the making, but in the observing. I am saying that you can almost guess reliably this case because you noticed it, and can assume that it was made by a human who notices it too. If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant. You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks.
True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approaches objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.We can't arrive at objective judgements on anything no matter what we do.
One difference is that science relies on alternatives, and so relative truth values. Another is the lack of objective ways of testing. Finally, unlike an experiment, the concept of universal design relies on verifying the existence of outside the standard, which is not possible until the standard can be truly quantified.How many experiments does it take for a theory to become credible?
Originally posted by FZ+
True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way.
I'm not sure I like the way you've worded this. You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption and have limited their conclusions. In this case, let me tell you what I would do (and what I think you would probably do too). If I were on Mars and I saw this, I might find it interesting enough to stay on Mars a few extra days. In that time, because I suspect someone built this and placed it here, I might start looking in the area for more signs of things that don't appear to be random constructions. I may find a village 2 miles away full of life.I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.
Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?Remember the quote? "When an eminent scientist says something is possible, he is usually correct. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."
Lol, I hear you, but I still don't believe you'd do what you're saying in this case.And deciding instead that this is just another "natural" thing you don't know is very constructive, and is in fact used in science.
But if we consider this as one of a multitude of possibilities that we would have considered unusual if it occured, then the significant disappears.
The analogy is that of the dropped pen. The chance is near zero that a specific position results. But the probability is almost 1 when we consider all the possible positions with a probability of near zero.
If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant.
Correct, I would never guess that a scar is a designed thing because there is nothing statistically signficant about scars on wood. Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished. Which just gets back to my point about designed things being distinguished from naturally occurring things.You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.
True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approaches objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.
In effect, we are making a value judgement, and saying that this value judgement reflects an objective component of the universe. We need something to let us make this leap.
What it means is instead "how many experiments does it take for an event to become INcredible?" And that, depending on your initial stance to the question, is either 1, or infinite.
No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.Because you have never experienced anyone doing it?
True. Sorry I made it appear the wrong way. But chance can be very interesting as well, as every scientist tells you. And you can't quite wander about outside the universe looking for a village. Context is the key here.You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption.
Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.The other view has simply put the object in the spaceship and gone back to earth, hoping that studying this object will help explain how errosion on Mars creates perfectly square metal boxes.
Heh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?
But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will achieve what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.The difference in my point is that I am not asking the question "what are the odds of this happening?". Because as you say the odds of anyone event will be very small considering all the other possibilities. The question I am asking is "what are the odds of a specific event compared to the odds of those other possibiltiies?" In your pen example, while the probability of any position is almost zero, that probability is not any lower than any other arrangement. An analogy I've used before is to imagine you have a crate full of automobile parts for one automobile. If you shake this crate up and dump it out, what are the odds that the parts will come out in any specific arrangement? Almost zero, as you said. But compare the odds of that with the odds of the parts coming our assembled in such a way that sticking a key in the ignition makes the engine crank? Impossible. I'm sure you can see the difference.
I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness. There is a certain man in America who insists that words are written on the inside of stones, if only he could understand them.If I saw a circle of sticks, I would be drawn to it, ESPECIALLY in the case where I had never seen a circle before!
Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales. The thing is all of this is deterministic chaos - the idea that what we perceive as order is often a natural product of chance. Indeed, the signs show that what we consider as order may be caused by the natural chance made things around us, so what we consider as unnatural is entirely arbitary. (I for one dispute that a distinct nature even exists.)But that's not what I'm claiming. I am saying that a thing that I am completely unfamiliar with can stick out if it displays characteristics that appear symmetrical and non-random.
And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished.
Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.I have no problem with this. I just don't think that our inabiltiy to know something necessarily means it isn't true.
The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.I didn't understand the point of this piece.
Originally posted by FZ+
No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.
Meanwhile, if we discuss something like the universe, it is very clear that we don't know everything about it, and so can't make a judgement on particular odds.
Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.
AgreedHeh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.
But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will achieve what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.
You're saying that whether or not something is statistically significant depends on the question that is asked I believe. You're right. The first question you mentioned could not be answered. "What is the probability of X?" does not provide enough information to have an answer. You would need to do as you did and put some boundaries around the question. Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars. But this doesn't change the comparison of that probability to the probability of the other options using the same question. This is the method I am suggesting should be used. Regardless of the question, the comparison of the probability of the alternatives should show similar results.When looking at the metal object, saying "what are the probabilities of this particular shape occurring by chance " isn't really relevant, as it is not just this shape that will do it for you. What you instead examine is "what are the probability that at any position on Mars I have covered, at any time, there would be one object which I would find unusual." On such a set of criteria, including the probabilities are exceptionally higher.
To look at the pen, you may then proceed to look at the angle of the pen, and say hey! This angle precisely co-incides with the direction to the nearby supermarket. In a way, we are all such significance junkies.
Just so you're clear, I believe that I would notice the circle not ONLY because I have not seen a circle before. I agree I see new stuff all the time and don't think a thing of it. But I would notice the circle because it is a symmetric, unnatural shape based on my vast experience of walking into woods and seeing sticks on the ground. If I see trees growing in a straight line I conclude that someone planted them. I know you do this too. This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness.
Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales.
I appreciate these comments. They seem to be more intuitive and personal in nature. I would be interested in trying to understand your views on what you see as trends versus what you would expect to see. But this thread probably isn't the place for it. I'm not interested in debating that with you. I'm more interested in just learning about others perspectives.I know from experience that it is far hard to produce real randomness than create a "beautiful" pattern. We underestimate chance constantly.
(The alternative to that is this is all design of great complexity in motion. That is self-consistent, but I don't really see the evidence. It's no disproof but you expect with design a single trend which items tend towards as an equilibrium. You almost never see that.)
If a single wolf with a single subjective perspective can distinguish it's designed scar from a non-designed scar than there must be an objective difference. The subjectivity lies in knowledge of purpose. Not the distinction itself, IMHO.And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.
LOL, True. But I don't distinguish the universe from the things in it. They are all part of the same thing. But it is a good point nonetheless.Also, it's blisteringly hard to talk about statistical significance when we only have one universe to compare.
Yes, I get your point. But design (with a little d) may have nothing to do with a non-testable god.Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.
The fact remains that each day you see things that you never see before, and you have no real way to call them random, or not. Nothing is ever the same (or sometimes it is, but only with very low probability). The only way you judge it is based on your context, and your experience - and to make such a judgement on something on a macro scale, you need to have an understanding of such criteria on the macro scale, or justify the assumption that what you find significant is in fact universally so.
The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.
Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things.If you do not know everything about the universe then how can you possibly make a statement of certainty about anything that evolves in it?
But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design? Ie. we can raise the issue of design in the car because we have a purpose we considered. But if the purpose we wish of the engine was different eg. to fall down in a particularly ludicrous way (like the purposes of Skodas for example , then any number of configurations would be an indication of design.If I found the automobile parts assembled in a way that would allow the engine to crank, that WOULD be an indication of design.
But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant. There is no one uniform absolute scale on which we can consider such odds when recognising design - unless if by presuming absolute purpose we make such one exist. It's like an old puzzle - what is the length of a coastline. At first sight, it appears simple, but it appears that as you increase in accuracy, using smaller and smaller rulers, you don't settle down but arrive towards an infinite length.Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars.
I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice.This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.
All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.
Originally posted by FZ+
Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things.
If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in. But my position would state that if you're configuration really came out by chance then it would not be able to do any of the things you have claimed it is doing because it is almost impossible for that to happen! The situation you are trying to paint which is one where the most impossible thing really does happen by chance and shows the flaw in what I'm saying cannot happen very often at all. By definition!But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design?
I don't understand this. There is no such measure as the "probability of chance". All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options. That is all there is. It is all math. There is no design, purpose, functionaility or any of that in this approach that I am using. All you can do is compare the probability of one configuration to others. When the question increases in scope the probabilities of all the options will increase accordingly but the comparison will be the same.But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant.
I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice.
Originally posted by heusdens
Untrue. Our knowledge comes from objective experience, from our relation with objective reality.
Our minds know nothing by themselves.
People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man!Originally posted by Fliption
Arguing against this is like trying to argue against 2+2=5. I think enough people here agree with what I said to make it not worth trying .
Originally posted by Zero
People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man!
LOL, when you put it that way, never mind!Originally posted by Fliption
True, but his position is extreme and we have enough things to sort out without having to deal with this kind of stuff. If you want We can get LifeGazer back to help balance out this extreme view.
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.Now if you take a look at everything that fits this description around you, you may notice that the odds of most of these things being created by chance is almost impossible.
Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.Does this mean that everything that has impossible odds is designed? NO! I concede this. All I'm saying is that it could be a strong indicator.
What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.The correlation of probability and intent is all that is needed.
Heh... Hell... I've forgotten what this whole levitation thing was about...But you not considering me human (because I can levitate) and then concluding that I can't levitate because I consider myself human is assuming that we define human the same way. I'm not sure how this shows anything.
Uh... isn't that exactly what I was trying to say, when I was talking about our lack of knowledge of an essentially infinite universe? I'm confused...Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system. And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.And that is to dismiss something based on past experience even though I can make the same claims to you that you have been making to me; that you cannot possiby have enough knowledge to do this.
But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in.
The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for anyone of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options.
My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.So you either agree that this method can be used(in the case of humans) or you do not believe it can be used(like in the case of forest). Which is it?
Yes, I have agreed with you that the odds of any specific snowflake occurring is almost zero. But the distinction is that these odds are no less than any other configuration of a snowflake given the boundaries that a snowflake operates in. And there is a 100% chance that it will take one of them.Originally posted by FZ+
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.
Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.
On a scale from 0 to 100, the number 3 would be a very low number. But it is huge compared to .0000000000000001.What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.
Sure we might define human similarly but my definition might be slightly different and may not define it as a being who can't levitate. Especially if I could actually levitate and definitely considered myself human!Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system.
And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.
I don't understand why you can't understand what I'm saying. The difference is obvious. Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance? You keep getting hung up on the fact that we "know" what an automobile engine is therefore it is the usefulness of it that makes me single it out. Thats just the nature of the examples I've used. I have to use a device that we are both familiar with or else I have no way of pointing out the correlation between designed things and the improbability of them happening by chance.But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.
What is the difference between the engine and the hill but that the engine does something that is subjectively - to our perspective - useful?
The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for anyone of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.
And then we get the feedback problem. How do we assess the probability, even comparative, but by observing the incidents happen? If we see a low probability event occur, then you can simply raise the probability of the result. And so, by this method, we would conclude from an engine that the probability of the engine occurring is much larger than we expected, so the occurance of the engine is nothing out of the ordinary - rather, it is our original assessment of the probability of an engine appearing that was flawed and unrealistic.
My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.
Originally posted by heusdens
Fliption:
You main argument then would be that since for instance an automobile has a hight improbability of assembling itself, given it's complexity and fine-tuning of parts to make it a working thing, it makes you conclude the thing needs a maker or creator.
So the deisgn history of the car is already a history of thousands of years!
Does not add up to one creation event, does it?
Uh huh...*grins*Originally posted by Fliption
The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.
But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that let's the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.This is clearly NOT the case with an engine made of automobile parts. If you bump into a contraption on Mars that could crank you would then ask yourself the question... "what are the odds that parts can naturally assemble themselves to allow the resulting creation to crank?" Yes, cranking would have to be part of the criteria but it is simply a physical property you have observed. There does not have to be any subjective understanding of the function of cranking.
I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know anyone thing, but we simply will never know everything.I still just don't see how you can claim that you can't speak about the universe due to lack of knowledge, yet you can compartmentalize any object inside of it and say everything that needs to be said. This method seems as unstable and subjective as what I'm suggesting.
No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one Earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance?
What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is necessary is to establish the latter ones.I didn't understand this.
But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that let's the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.
Suppose we have a lock, with a hole with which a specific snowflake fits in, and we find a snowflake that happens to fit it. Then we would argue that the safe is designed, would we not? And hence is the point - the thing that makes us think the thing is designed is not the item, or whatever odds it has, but the safe, the mental keyhole in which it fits. Boulders do roll down hills, but they never roll down in exactly the same way. What is critical to the finding of purpose in these cases is us, and the purpose our subjectivity provides. That is what focuses our minds on the cranking of the engine instead of the special ways in can fall apart - the fact that we find it useful. And another problem is that we cannot determine if the key was made for the lock, or the lock was made for the key. If we have a lock and a key, then it is easy to suggest design is present. But with only a key, or a lock, then we cannot begin but by making assumptions.
Ok, then we'll just have to agree to disagree here.I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know anyone thing, but we simply will never know everything.
No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one Earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?
The method for us the judge the probability of the boulders is to see how often they appear, though we cannot watch them spontaneously put themselves in positions where they can fall, we assume that they do so. By your method, if we compare the appearance of engines and boulders right now, without reference to function etc, we might be forgiven for interpretating that it is the boulders that are designed, not the engines.
What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is necessary is to establish the latter ones.
Originally posted by Fliption
No That's not my argument. I don't make any conclusions based on odds. All I'm doing is pointing out the correlation between designed things and the statistical improbability of those things happening in nature. If the odds are incredible enough it doesn't "need" anything like a creator necessarily. It just needs to be explored with a more open mind as to how it got where it is.
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.
This actually makes a lot of sense! Except for one thing perhaps, the part about God not being subject to us, otherwise I don't think He would have given us an ego.Originally posted by dschou
some interesting quotes that may be somewhat applicable to this discussion:
"the fool says in his heart there is no God"
"...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator. though they claimed to be wise they became fools."
lets step out on a limb here. God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me.
nevertheless, the sheer nonsense that is spewed forth by the atheist or the materialist (in short, the fool) is not above reproach or rebuttal though it nears "reductio ad absurdum".
some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.
somewhere in all this reasoning, everyone became unreasonable (and for no apparent reason - the truth is quite obvious).
Guess again.Maybe this is why it's so hard to acknowledge that He exists, because He's so busy fulfilling the needs of His creation?
Originally posted by dschou
some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.