Jump to content


Photo

Why Would Anyone Think...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
82 replies to this topic

#41 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:11 PM

Hey Arch,
Let's see how good your logic is. First, would you agree that something that is illogical or irrational is disqualified for potential reality, right out of the chute?

View Post


No. It might mean that. It might also mean you are applying the wrong logic.

Second, would you agree that an infinite regress demonstrates a logical problem?

View Post


Absolutely.

Third, do you agree that eternity or eternality is rational and evidence based?

View Post


We have absolutely no understanding of eternity, and that's assuming it exists. It's hard to be rational about something one does not understand. As for evidence, currently there is none but I'm not aware of any research being done into it, so that's not surprising.

Regards,

Arch.

#42 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:13 PM

Every time we think we've found the simplest thing we later find out we were way off. At some stage people would not have been able to conceive of animals being made up of cells or molecules or DNA. I have little doubt that we'll find that cells are made from smaller, less complicated things, which came from smaller, less complicated things, which...


You do realize that the less complicated it gets,the easier it would be to figure out.

View Post


That's a huge assumption on your part. I was referring to the complexity of the organism (or chemical or whatever it turns out to be), not the process of finding it.

Regards,

Arch.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 June 2009 - 02:52 AM

I knew I'd get asked this :o The original question asked for my opinion as to why I thought complexity could come from nothing, so this is getting a little removed. None the less, let's have a shot shall we?

Cells came from amino acids, which came from chemical concoctions present in the early earth's atmosphere, which came from star dust, which came from the big bang! which came from God! which came from!!!
...oh wait, gotta stop there  ;)

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Ah, rhetorical devices to cover for a lack of answers to explain you faith in atheism Archie? Not very well done, even from a layman’s standpoint..

Of course you knew you were going to be asked this, you’re the one attempting to make the “Less complicated” argument.

#44 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2009 - 03:59 AM

Ah, rhetorical devices to cover for a lack of answers to explain you faith in atheism Archie? Not very well done, even from a layman’s standpoint..

Of course you knew you were going to be asked this, you’re the one attempting to make the “Less complicated” argument.

View Post


Yeah I can wear that ;)

Of course you are right Ron, the fact is we don't know. But the more we search the more we find and it seems (to me) that one day we may find an answer, if we look for it.

Creationists on the other hand claim that everything came from God, yet don't have an answer to where God came from. They try and say that God doesn't need to come from anywhere because he is eternal, but offer no explanation for how this is known short of using Biblical evidence. For someone who doesn't take the Bible of face value I'm sure you can understand how I might find this less than convincing.

But that's enough of that. The OP asked for why I felt I could explain a cells complexity and I have given that. I'd prefer not to get pulled into another useless debate over something that (currently) has no proof.

Regards,

Arch.

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:59 AM

Arch,

Your attempt at equivocation is painfully obvious. Please note how you did not answer my question.

First, would you agree that something that is illogical or irrational is disqualified for potential reality, right out of the chute?

View Post

No. It might mean that. It might also mean you are applying the wrong logic.

View Post

Unlike Bill Clinton you don't get to make your own definition for the word 'is'. You just aren't powerful enough. :)

So do you see how your answer is a non-answer. BTW, you're trying to use logic to shed doubt on logic, how sweet. :o

We have absolutely no understanding of eternity, and that's assuming it exists. It's hard to be rational about something one does not understand. As for evidence, currently there is none but I'm not aware of any research being done into it, so that's not surprising.

View Post

...and yet hear we are talking about eternity. ;)

To say we have no understanding of something, itself infers that you know something about it. Did you know that this is the very problem that makes Emanuel Kant's agnosticism irrational?

#46 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:31 PM

Arch,

Your attempt at equivocation is painfully obvious. Please note how you did not answer my question.

View Post


Sorry Adam, my mistake. I guess I just wanted to be sure we understand that just because we call something illogical doesn't mean that it is. We may just be missing some additional information.

So to answer the question you actually asked, "would you agree that something that is illogical or irrational is disqualified for potential reality, right out of the chute?"

If it is illogical I can't imagine it is possible in reality.

Unlike Bill Clinton you don't get to make your own definition for the word 'is'. You just aren't powerful enough. :lol:

View Post


Spoil sport ;)

...and yet hear we are talking about eternity.  :blink:

To say we have no understanding of something, itself infers that you know something about it. Did you know that this is the very problem that makes Emanuel Kant's agnosticism irrational?

View Post


I know, it's kind of silly to discuss something we have such limited knowledge about. You are right of course, we have a very limited understanding of eternity. We understand what it's meant to be, but we have no idea if it actually exists.

And no I'm not aware of Emanuel Kant. Is it worth elaborating on?

Regards,

Arch.

#47 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 June 2009 - 07:01 AM

Yeah I can wear that  :P

View Post


It fits you well :D

Of course you are right Ron, the fact is we don't know. But the more we search the more we find and it seems (to me) that one day we may find an answer, if we look for it.

View Post


Actually, we do know Arch. The problem is that some of us don’t like the answer, so we either struggle mightily with disproving Him, or we simply pretend He doesn’t exist, and base our argumentation on that.

Creationists on the other hand claim that everything came from God, yet don't have an answer to where God came from. They try and say that God doesn't need to come from anywhere because he is eternal, but offer no explanation for how this is known short of using Biblical evidence. For someone who doesn't take the Bible of face value I'm sure you can understand how I might find this less than convincing.

View Post


That is incorrect Archie. Creation argumentation with non-believers starts with the logical and scientific facts that someone or something created (started) all of this due to the massive amounts of design and logic “built” into creation. You don’t need to know where God came from to see His handiwork all around you (but you can plug your ears, close your eyes and sing la-la-la-la. And hope it goes away). To posit such a question is simply a red-herring because of the fact that we WILL one day know who was correct (or in the case of the atheist’s thesis… We won’t know). One way will be horrific for the atheist, the other wont matter to the creationist.


But that's enough of that. The OP asked for why I felt I could explain a cells complexity and I have given that. I'd prefer not to get pulled into another useless debate over something that (currently) has no proof.

View Post


That, also, is incorrect Archie. The original questions were:

Why would anyone think this was a random accident?  :)

What, in all this complexity, would bring one to think it would just come about from nothing?  :huh:

View Post


Which correlates finely with the current discussion, and of which you haven’t given an answer to either of the original questions, or that of “a cells complexity”. You just shrugged off the first two, and attempted to say a cell came from a less complex amino acids, then rambled down a trail to obscurity. Which begs the question entirely!

How can something of such complexity, come from something of less complexity? Are you saying that amino acids conspired to build a cell? And where did this conspiracy come from, the less complex amino acids? :o

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 June 2009 - 07:10 AM

Sorry Adam, my mistake. I guess I just wanted to be sure we understand that just because we call something illogical doesn't mean that it is. We may just be missing some additional information.

View Post


Also, just because something “IS” logical, doesn’t mean you’re calling it illogical makes it so. :huh:

And no I'm not aware of Emanuel Kant. Is it worth elaborating on?

View Post


I’m sure if you look on wiki, you’ll get someone’s unregulated opinion on Emanuel Kant. :)

Otherwise, you can google his name, and check the historical documentation and writings on him (and his writings of course).

I’d be happy to give you some good sources if you’re interested.

#49 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2009 - 10:58 PM

Also, just because something “IS” logical, doesn’t mean you’re calling it illogical makes it so.  :)

View Post


I'm aware of that Ron, hence the reason why I wanted to distinguish between the two. And thank you for completely ignoring the fact that I did answer Adams question.

Regards,

Arch.

#50 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2009 - 11:21 PM

It fits you well  :o

View Post


:)

Actually, we do know Arch. The problem is that some of us don’t like the answer, so we either struggle mightily with disproving Him, or we simply pretend He doesn’t exist, and  base our argumentation on that.

View Post


We've been over this on other forums Ron and I found your argument that faith can equal knowledge less than convincing. I guess we'll once again have to agree to disagree on this point.
If it makes you feel any better, feel free to interpret "we don't know" as "currently sciences doesn't know".

You don’t need to know where God came from to see His handiwork all around you

View Post


Saying you don't need to know where God came from to see the worlds beauty doesn't explain where God came from. It just avoids it.

To posit such a question is simply a red-herring because of the fact that we WILL one day know who was correct (or in the case of the atheist’s thesis… We won’t know).  One way will be horrific for the atheist, the other wont matter to the creationist.

View Post


You may want to re-read my last post Ron. There was no question posted to be a red-herring.
I'm sure there is incredible comfort in knowing that regardless of who is right, you will never have the chance to be proved wrong.

That, also, is incorrect Archie. The original questions were:

"What, in all this complexity, would bring one to think it would just come about from nothing?"

you...attempted to say a cell came from a less complex amino acids, then rambled down a trail to obscurity. Which begs the question entirely!"

View Post


Well Ron I guess I can't answer the question then, because I don't believe this complexity came from nothing. The only way I can answer it is to show where the original question was incorrect. I'm afraid this is the best I can do for you.

The same can be said for the question:

"Why would anyone think this was a random accident?"

I don't think it was a random accident. I think when the right conditions are presented it is inevitable.

How can something of such complexity, come from something of less complexity?

View Post


Heaps of complex things comes from less complex things. You already know this. Take a look at any business made up of less complex individuals. Or any object orientated programming.

I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts".

Are you saying that amino acids conspired to build a cell? And where did this conspiracy come from, the less complex amino acids?  :huh:

View Post


I do love the way you word things Ron. 'Conspiracy' is such an emotive word and implies intelligence, so no I don't think it was a conspiracy. However I do believe that current evidence suggests cells are likely to have come from combining amino acids.

Regards,

Arch.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 05:03 AM

We've been over this on other forums Ron and I found your argument that faith can equal knowledge less than convincing. I guess we'll once again have to agree to disagree on this point.

View Post


You don’t mind using it when you cross a large expanse on a bridge (or in a tunnel under thousands of tons or water). I’m sure your faith is pretty convincing then Archie. Faith doesn’t always equal knowledge, but it can equal knowledge. So, if you wish do disagree, that is your right.

If it makes you feel any better, feel free to interpret "we don't know" as "currently sciences doesn't know".

View Post


Or we can more accurately interpret it as “Science will never know” in this material existence. But, there are many-many scientists who know this already.

Saying you don't need to know where God came from to see the worlds beauty doesn't explain where God came from. It just avoids it.

View Post


No, Archie, it doesn’t avoid anything, it simply admits that we see the evidence of a great many things with out having to see the things themselves. And, we can see the evidences of God all around us without the ability to physically see Him. If you cannot get past that point, you will struggle with the weightier matter of where He came from. But, in the end, we WILL all find out.


You may want to re-read my last post Ron. There was no question posted to be a red-herring.

View Post


Sure it is Arch, we know that there had to be an initial causer. If you go back far enough, it is actually inevitable. You will likely attempt to argue infinite regress, but (as already been pointed out ad nauseam) that infinite regress is actually illogical. Therefore it is a red-herring. And, you will likely continue to use it.


I'm sure there is incredible comfort in knowing that regardless of who is right, you will never have the chance to be proved wrong.

View Post


Here is where you're displaying another misconception. I am not being proven right or wrong. I only see the logic and truth in the matter. I have absolutely nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness in it.

If you were a blind man stumbling toward a cliff, and I was too far away to physically impede your toppling over that edge; the best I could do is run toward you and holler “stop or you’re going to die”. The FACT of your imminent danger, and your demise if you continue on said path, doesn’t make me right or wrong, it makes the facts right or wrong.

It doesn’t give me any comfort that some will fall off that cliff to their end (of their own volition). It actually saddens me, and makes me wish there were more I could do to convince them. But, some continue in not listening to truth, and they do so to their own dismay and destruction.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 05:09 AM

Continued…

Well Ron I guess I can't answer the question then, because I don't believe this complexity came from nothing. The only way I can answer it is to show where the original question was incorrect. I'm afraid this is the best I can do for you.

The same can be said for the question:

"Why would anyone think this was a random accident?"

View Post


Not even in the same league Archie, and your beliefs and faith won’t change any of that. So, when have you ever observed a random accident create something of intricate design? (Never mind that question for now. We’ll discuss it below).

The original question wasn’t incorrect; some just don’t like the implications of the truth in the answers.

I don't think it was a random accident. I think when the right conditions are presented it is inevitable.
Heaps of complex things comes from less complex things. You already know this. Take a look at any business made up of less complex individuals. Or any object orientated programming.

View Post


The conditions were real good Arch. The master architect took the raw materials and created something magnificent. It’s not as if the right conditions would cause a windstorm to build a log cabin in the forest. Or a million monkeys could type out Shakespeare on a million typewriters!

Having faith in that, is like having the faith that you would trust your life to a computer program for an aircraft you were riding in having been typed out by the cleats of a baseball player dancing on a computer keyboard.

And, if you’re going to equate individuals in a business with amino acids, then those amino acids aren’t as simple or un-complex as you are pretending they are. By the way, there is no business in this world that is as complex as the individuals that make it up. Even the “brain” in one of the individuals that make it up, is far more complex then the most multifaceted business this world has to offer.

Therefore, it was a bad analogy.

I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts".

View Post


I totally agree Archie "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. But, what drives those parts to create the whole, sustain the whole, and maintain the whole?

I do love the way you word things Ron. 'Conspiracy' is such an emotive word and implies intelligence, so no I don't think it was a conspiracy. However I do believe that current evidence suggests cells are likely to have come from combining amino acids.

View Post


Everything you attempt to argue denotes design Archie (if you think about that, you’ll finally get it), if that makes you emotive, then so-be-it. But, somehow you are confusing the building blocks with the builder.

#53 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 June 2009 - 10:16 PM

You don’t mind using it when you cross a large expanse on a bridge (or in a tunnel under thousands of tons or water). I’m sure your faith is pretty convincing then Archie. Faith doesn’t always equal knowledge, but it can equal knowledge. So, if you wish do disagree, that is your right.

View Post


Sorry Ron, still disagreeing. If I have faith the bridge wont break that implies I don't know it.

That said I've never tried to say faith is a bad thing. If I didn't have faith in that bridge (or it's designer :rolleyes: ) I might never cross it, which would be unfortunate.

Or we can more accurately interpret it as “Science will never know” in this material existence. But, there are many-many scientists who know this already.

View Post


Just to be sure we were both talking about the Big Bang still yes? Well, science may one day find out what came before the 'bang', or we may discover the whole theory is hogwash. Either way science is very likely to find out. Probably not in our lifetime, but hey, that's my faith.

No, Archie, it doesn’t avoid anything,  it simply admits that we see the evidence of a great many things with out having to see the things themselves. And, we can see the evidences of God all around us without the ability to physically see Him. If you cannot get past that point, you will struggle with the weightier matter of where He came from. But, in the end, we WILL all find out.

View Post


Seeing a beautiful garden often denotes a gardener. However the most beautiful of gardens are those found growing wildly, without a tender.

"But, in the end, we WILL all find out" - Even as an atheist I still hope there is truth in this :(

we know that there had to be an initial causer. If you go back far enough, it is actually inevitable. You will likely attempt to argue infinite regress, but (as already been pointed out ad nauseam) that infinite regress is actually illogical. Therefore it is a red-herring. And, you will likely continue to use it.

View Post


My point here Ron was that I didn't ask a question, therefore there was no question to be a red-herring...anyway...

Infinite regress does inevitably cause a logical problem. But there are a couple of assumptions you've made that have led you to believe the initial causer is God. I'm not ruling that possibility out, but I also accept there may be other explanations.

Firstly, why does there have to be one initial causer? What stops there being multiple?

Secondly our laws break down and fall apart at the point of singularity (just before the big bang). There is no reason to believe cause and effect still apply here.

And, if you’re going to equate individuals in a business with amino acids, then those amino acids aren’t as simple or un-complex as you are pretending they are.

View Post


*Facepalm* That was the point of using something less complex Ron. To show that something simple can build something complex, then those slightly more complex things can build something even more complex. That's why I used the object orientated programming example (sorry, I've done some programming. Does everyone know what I'm talking about?).

Building a complex program straight off the bat is really really hard. But building smaller programs that do simple functions, then combining them together to do more complex things is a lot easier.


By the way, there is no business in this world that is as complex as the individuals that make it up. Even the “brain” in one of the individuals that make it up, is far more complex then the most multifaceted business this world has to offer.

View Post


Ah...a business is made up of a lot of people, each of which have a brain. So a business is indeed more complex than an individual because it's made up a lots of them.

I totally agree Archie "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. But, what drives those parts to create the whole, sustain the whole, and maintain the whole?

View Post


Good question Ron, what drives you to maintain the business you work for? Unless you're trying to pull it down from the inside :P

Regards,

Arch.

#54 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 June 2009 - 03:25 PM

Sorry Ron, still disagreeing. If I have faith the bridge wont break that implies I don't know it.

That said I've never tried to say faith is a bad thing. If I didn't have faith in that bridge (or it's designer  :rolleyes: ) I might never cross it, which would be unfortunate.

View Post

*Applause*

You should be eligible for some sort of award for that. It's a point we don't often see people of your persuasion fail to miss.

#55 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:19 PM

*Applause*

You should be eligible for some sort of award for that. It's a point we don't often see people of your persuasion fail to miss.

View Post


lol, thanks...I think :rolleyes:

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:24 PM

Sorry Ron, still disagreeing. If I have faith the bridge wont break that implies I don't know it.

View Post


There are many who crossed bridges that they had faith would hold… Only to have their dreams crushed. Every bridge you cross, is a bridge you don’t know.


That said I've never tried to say faith is a bad thing. If I didn't have faith in that bridge (or it's designer  :rolleyes: ) I might never cross it, which would be unfortunate.

View Post


That is true, and yet you continue in your faith to cross those bridges.


Just to be sure we were both talking about the Big Bang still yes?

View Post


Did you not read the title to the thread?

Well, science may one day find out what came before the 'bang', or we may discover the whole theory is hogwash. Either way science is very likely to find out. Probably not in our lifetime, but hey, that's my faith.

View Post


I doubt science will find it, but I’m sure man will. And to disbelieve is still faith Archie.

Seeing a beautiful garden often denotes a gardener. However the most beautiful of gardens are those found growing wildly, without a tender.

View Post


There’s a big difference between a garden and seeds that were left in a birds or bears droppings… It’s a little thing we call design.

"But, in the end, we WILL all find out" - Even as an atheist I still hope there is truth in this  :o

View Post


It’s a fact Arch, that’s why your hearing the clarion call. Will you listen?

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:25 PM

My point here Ron was that I didn't ask a question, therefore there was no question to be a red-herring...anyway...

View Post


When you “beg the question” you are still asking for an answer Archie.

Infinite regress does inevitably cause a logical problem. But there are a couple of assumptions you've made that have led you to believe the initial causer is God. I'm not ruling that possibility out, but I also accept there may be other explanations.

View Post


A logical problem indeed Arch, but my assumptions are based on empirically inductive science and logic.


Firstly, why does there have to be one initial causer? What stops there being multiple?

View Post


Firstly, ALL the inductive scientific evidence we have proves it. And I never said there wasn’t a Triune “causer”.

Secondly our laws break down and fall apart at the point of singularity (just before the big bang). There is no reason to believe cause and effect still apply here.

View Post


This is an assumption on your part Archie. There is no reason to believe cause and effect doesn’t apply. Therefore, you are basing your assumption on unproven qualities. I am basing mine on inductive and logical qualities that we KNOW work.

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 04:26 PM

*Facepalm* That was the point of using something less complex Ron. To show that something simple can build something complex, then those slightly more complex things can build something even more complex. That's why I used the object orientated programming example (sorry, I've done some programming. Does everyone know what I'm talking about?).

View Post



Programming denotes design Archie. And it requires someone to not only do the programming, but to first conceptualize, and then design, then build the program. Sure the “0’s” and “1’s” aren’t very complex, but the work it took to put it all together was. And the causative mover of the design was a lot more complex the everything He designed.


Building a complex program straight off the bat is really really hard. But building smaller programs that do simple functions, then combining them together to do more complex things is a lot easier.

View Post


Absolutely correct Archie, but it still denotes design (and a designer).

#59 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 05:27 PM

There are many who crossed bridges that they had faith would hold… Only to have their dreams crushed. Every bridge you cross, is a bridge you don’t know.

View Post


I think you might finally be starting to see this from my point of view. This is good :o

Firstly, ALL the inductive scientific evidence we have proves it. And I never said there wasn’t a Triune “causer”.

View Post


Good, I like to keep the things we're not sure about open. There could be one causer, there could be 3, there could be hundreds for all we know.

This is an assumption on your part Archie. There is no reason to believe cause and effect doesn’t apply. Therefore, you are basing your assumption on unproven qualities. I am basing mine on inductive and logical qualities that we KNOW work.

View Post


But that's the point, we KNOW they don't work at the singularity. When we can't yet prove something I try not to jump to conclusions on what that means. There is every chance that at the singularity you would find God (here I go, sounding all agnostic again :rolleyes:). But we don't KNOW that, and for this reason I keep my mind open to other possibilities.

Regards,

Arch.

#60 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 05:36 PM

Programming denotes design Archie. And it requires someone to not only do the programming, but to first conceptualize, and then design, then build the program. Sure the “0’s” and “1’s” aren’t very complex, but the work it took to put it all together was. And the causative mover of the design was a lot more complex the everything He designed.
Absolutely correct Archie, but it still denotes design (and a designer).

View Post


Actually there is some programming out there when put on random can generate AI, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

You see as soon as I try and prove something you drop it back another step.

You say "God made these animals as they are",

I say "But look at what they're made up of. Tiny little cells that can exist on their own".

You say "Well where did the cells come from, God must have made those".

I say "Oh no, we think they came from these things called amino acids"

You say "Well where did the amino acids come from, God must have made those"

etc etc eventually leading us back to big band theory/initial causer.

The only question I'm trying to answer is about cells complexity, and that they are made up of a simpler form called amino acids. Beyond that we'll probably need another forum because we'll have to get into how the earth formed and star dust and other studies that are so complex themselves that it's pointless discussing them in this biology related forum.

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users