:shrug:

Whose intent? And how did their existence come about?

Yes, I think it's highly plausible. Although evolution isn't strictly speaking chance, our existence was a bit hit or miss. There is one small fossil that it said to contain the first rudiments of a backbone. If that animal had never been successful (and the vast majority of species are not) no vertebrate animals would exist.

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...

Yes, I think it's highly plausible. Although evolution isn't strictly speaking chance, our existence was a bit hit or miss. There is one small fossil that it said to contain the first rudiments of a backbone. If that animal had never been successful (and the vast majority of species are not) no vertebrate animals would exist.
Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

What does that have to do with it?

What does that have to do with it?
It has to do with it. Otherwise, you don't deny that causality exists... just that everything has a cause.

Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

You've put your foot in it now, because you believe that God is causeless. If God, infinite in his complexity, can exist without a cause, then so can the universe.

Although I am an atheist, I have no problem with seeing the universe itself as God. I wouldn't call it God, but could indeed describe it as the ultimate causeless reality (again, just as you would describe God).

It has to do with it.
No it doesn't.
Look at the thread title.
Cause does not imply or require intent.
There can be a cause without intent.

It has to do with it. Otherwise, you don't deny that causality exists... just that everything has a cause.

I think it's irrelevant to the question, but I can name one, the radioactive decay of any particular atom.

I think it's irrelevant to the question, but I can name one, the radioactive decay of any particular atom.

Just to be a pedantic bastard for a minute, the decay is indeed part of a physical chain of cause and effect, it's just that it's impossible to figure out when it's going to decay.

Then nothing causes that event at a specific point in time?

Then nothing causes that event at a specific point in time?

I think it's a measurement problem more than anything else.

Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

livingin360, those are not uncaused events.

I would suggest that both radioactive decay events and quantum virtual particles that cause the casimir effect are uncaused.

You've put your foot in it now, because you believe that God is causeless. If God, infinite in his complexity, can exist without a cause, then so can the universe.

Although I am an atheist, I have no problem with seeing the universe itself as God. I wouldn't call it God, but could indeed describe it as the ultimate causeless reality (again, just as you would describe God).
^ This...

Although I used to refer to the universe as "god". I've had to quit as it just confuses people.

^ This...

Although I used to refer to the universe as "god". I've had to quit as it just confuses people.

the word God needs to be deleted from languages. Your pretty much saying universe = universe. Unless however you think the universe is a lifeform.

Your pretty much saying universe = universe.

There's more to it than that. The vast majority of people believe in the universe of course, but it takes on a different character when you think of it as God. Instead of conceiving of a greater and more fundamental external "something" that is the ultimate uncaused cause, you see the universe itself as being absolutely fundamental. In other words, the universe itself is elevated to the same ontological status that theists assign to God.

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...Is it the "not considering it by intent" that you struggle with or the "existence by chance"?
What exactly does either have to do with being able to function day-to-day?
Do you sincerely think that as soon as one claims existence is by chance that they become nihilistic, consider life pointless and thus should seek their inevitable non-existence as soon as possible? Do you think brain function should somehow cease?

Actually I'm hoping that yours was just a throw-away comment with more intent behind the sentiment rather than the actual words used? :shrug:

the word God needs to be deleted from languages. Your pretty much saying universe = universe. Unless however you think the universe is a lifeform.
Which is an interesting idea. However, there is insufficient data with which to persue the idea any further than pure speculation.

Do you really find it compelling that our existence came by chance and not intent? :shrug:

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...
I would ask if the meeting between your parents was by chance or has been predetermined?
If it was predetermined that means that you are supporter of determinism, which does not allow random.
Or you have another explanation?

^ This...

Although I used to refer to the universe as "god". I've had to quit as it just confuses people.

That's pantheism.

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...

Seriously? Why?

That's pantheism.
True - but it's still a far cry from what most people mean by the word "god", and even further from those who would capitalize it.

It has to do with it. Otherwise, you don't deny that causality exists... just that everything has a cause.

I don't see how one can go from a cause to intent. I think cause and effect started with the big bang along with time and space.

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...


Seriously? Why?

A good question.

Signal,

I don't follow you here.
What does one have to do with the other??

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...

I thought you said you were an atheist.. :confused:
How do you reconcile being an atheist with what you said above?

I thought you said you were an atheist.. :confused:
How do you reconcile being an atheist with what you said above?
But has he claimed to be functional?

good point :)

But has he claimed to be functional?

Uh no.. but.. :p

Is it the "not considering it by intent" that you struggle with or the "existence by chance"?
What exactly does either have to do with being able to function day-to-day?
Do you sincerely think that as soon as one claims existence is by chance that they become nihilistic, consider life pointless and thus should seek their inevitable non-existence as soon as possible? Do you think brain function should somehow cease?

Someone said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"; but contrary to that idea, dissonance is not comfortable, and people generally seek to do away with it.

Unless they are sufficiently drugged out, that is ... tv and other popular culture will do. :o :eek:



Do you sincerely think that as soon as one claims existence is by chance that they become nihilistic, consider life pointless and thus should seek their inevitable non-existence as soon as possible?

Probably not in that moment, but in due time.

Belief in chance and intent/free will are mutually exclusive.

I thought you said you were an atheist..
How do you reconcile being an atheist with what you said above?

Because I believe that it takes a lot - a lot - more to be a theist than just being able to come up with some philosophical arguments that seem to support theism.

Someone said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"; but contrary to that idea, dissonance is not comfortable, and people generally seek to do away with it.What dissonance is there in the idea that there in intent to our existence? I feel no such discomfort. Why do you?

Perhaps the issue here is not with the concept per se, but merely with your personal discomfort with the idea, and your apparent inability to put yourself at ease with the notion?


Probably not in that moment, but in due time.And you have evidence to support this position of yours? Perhaps the number of suicides carried out due to the person thinking that we came here by chance?

Perhaps you could even provide a reasoning as to why you hold this position? Why do you think that people who consider us to be here "by chance" would become nihilistic and ultimately seek to end their pointless lives as quickly as possible etc?

Because I believe that it takes a lot - a lot - more to be a theist than just being able to come up with some philosophical arguments that seem to support theism.

As far as I know it only takes belief in a God in order to be a theist.
If you believe that life was created with intent that implies that you believe in a God.

As far as I know it only takes belief in a God in order to be a theist.
If you believe that life was created with intent that implies that you believe in a God.

I suppose this is so from the perspective of a (particular) atheist...

What dissonance is there in the idea that there in intent to our existence? I feel no such discomfort. Why do you?

Perhaps the issue here is not with the concept per se, but merely with your personal discomfort with the idea, and your apparent inability to put yourself at ease with the notion?

And you have evidence to support this position of yours? Perhaps the number of suicides carried out due to the person thinking that we came here by chance?

Perhaps you could even provide a reasoning as to why you hold this position? Why do you think that people who consider us to be here "by chance" would become nihilistic and ultimately seek to end their pointless lives as quickly as possible etc?

Like I said above:

Beliefs in chance and intent/free will are mutually exclusive.

And like I also said earlier: If a person is drugged out enough, they won't be seriously bothered by philosophical questions.
By "drugged out", I also mean the usual distractions that daily life in modern culture abounds with.

But given your reply, I have to add another factor: atheism, or thinking oneself to be God. Namely, with an atheistic outlook, I suppose it is possible to be at ease with the idea that life came by by chance, since one holds oneself (or the mind) to be the highest authority, so what matters is one's own explanation, whatever it is.

I suppose this is so from the perspective of a (particular) atheist...

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

I find that what you said earlier -


As far as I know it only takes belief in a God in order to be a theist.
If you believe that life was created with intent that implies that you believe in a God.

is an incredibly shallow standard, just the sort of shallow that an average atheist would abide by.

I have to add another factor: atheism, or thinking oneself to be God.
Are you serious? You think atheists think of themselves as gods?

Are you serious? You think atheists think of themselves as gods?

They certainly place themselves, or the mind, as the highest authority there is.

I find that what you said earlier -



is an incredibly shallow standard, just the sort of shallow that an average atheist would abide by.

Ok, it would help if you explained how someone that does not believe in a god does believe in the creation of life with intent.
I (shallow as I am) see no other explanation than that you believe that some intelligent being must have created life. Otherwise it would be impossible to speak of intent.

They certainly place themselves, or the mind, as the highest authority there is.

Not necessairly, not as athiests anyway.
Atheism is simply the lack of believe in god or gods.

Ok, it would help if you explained how someone that does not believe in a god does believe in the creation of life with intent.
I (shallow as I am) see no other explanation than that you believe that some intelligent being must have created life. Otherwise it would be impossible to speak of intent.

I was describing what you, as an atheist, believe that theists believe.

You yourself said:


As far as I know it only takes belief in a God in order to be a theist.
If you believe that life was created with intent that implies that you believe in a God.

I think many theists would say that this is a shallow idea of what theism is about.

IOW, theists would tend to believe that it takes a lot more than just "believing in God" in order to be a theist. (Namely, that there has to be daily activity that is in line with "believing in God".)

Not necessairly, not as athiests anyway.
Atheism is simply the lack of believe in god or gods.

Riiight. Atheists have no notion of "highest authority". They live in total chaos. :rolleyes:

I was describing what you, as an atheist, believe that theists believe.

You yourself said:



I think many theists would say that this is a shallow idea of what theism is about.

IOW, theists would tend to believe that it takes a lot more than just "believing in God" in order to be a theist. (Namely, that there has to be daily activity that is in line with "believing in God".)
It seems to me that you are confusing 'having religion' with 'being a theist'.

Riiight. Atheists have no notion of "highest authority". They live in total chaos. :rolleyes:

Not as sofar as their atheism is concerned. Having notion of a highest authority is not part of atheism, which is not to say that atheists have no such notion.

They certainly place themselves, or the mind, as the highest authority there is.
If, by that, you mean that I accept that I am fully responsible for my own actions... Then yes, I am the highest authority over me.

livingin360, those are not uncaused events.

I would suggest that both radioactive decay events and quantum virtual particles that cause the casimir effect are uncaused.
Radioactive decay necessarily requires an unstable nuclei. It may not be sufficient, but it does seem to be necessary, so it seems more accurate to say that at least one cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nuclei.

My questions are: How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

It seems to me that you are confusing 'having religion' with 'being a theist'.

You are forgetting that I am not a hardcore atheist, so I don't subscribe to atheist definitions of things.

You are forgetting that I am not a hardcore atheist, so I don't subscribe to atheist definitions of things.

Those are not atheist definitions :bugeye:

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

My questions are: How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

Let's contextualize this properly. Are you talking about the fact that we don't know what caused the Big Bang? Put the real question on the table.

Radioactive decay necessarily requires an unstable nuclei. It may not be sufficient, but it does seem to be necessary, so it seems more accurate to say that at least one cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nuclei.

My questions are: How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

No one really concludes that the big bang was uncaused, only that we don't know what caused it if anything, or even if the term applies to that situation. Let's not multiply premises unnecessarily, nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist.

Let's contextualize this properly. Are you talking about the fact that we don't know what caused the Big Bang? Put the real question on the table.
Ok, we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe. The beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.

The beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused

What arguments do you have to demonstrate this?

No one really concludes that the big bang was uncaused, only that we don't know what caused it if anything, or even if the term applies to that situation.
And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.

Ok, we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe. The beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.
If you assume that everything has a beginning or every beginning requires a cause, then you have fallen into a logical black hole.

It's turtles all the way down...

And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.

It does with quantum events as I said. Since the early universe was on the same scale, those insights might apply there.

Even if you are proposing that there is some first cause, you still cannot show that it would have to be supernatural or a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Genetic error has a cause rooted in physical chemistry based on chemic affinity, reaction energy, chemic equilibrium and Brownian motion. These factors conspire to generate random variation at a regular rate. Biological processes that correct errors through use of biological information mitigate the errors so that only a few slip through. It would be incorrect to say that genetic errors have no cause.

Cause and effect is the null hypothesis in our physical reality. I would be very interested in scientific demonstration of a real effect (an actual event with a beginning) that verifiably has no cause. :)

The beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused
Why?
What do you think points to a "transcending cause" as a better fit, given that there's no data on either?


so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.
And the part of our physical laws that "allow for transcendence" would be...?
Please elucidate, I'm fascinated.

And, once again: why are you harping on about caused/ uncaused when the OP (YOUR OP) asks about intent?

livingin360, those are not uncaused events.

I would suggest that both radioactive decay events and quantum virtual particles that cause the casimir effect are uncaused.
The cause is known. Radioactive decay is caused by and is a result of unstable nuclei.

The cause is known. Radioactive decay is caused by and is a result of unstable nuclei.

The the big bang could be the result of an unstable nuclei of sorts.

The the big bang could be the result of an unstable nuclei of sorts.

Or as an increasing number of physicists are suggesting, the instability of an unphysical state (i.e., nothing).

Yes, pure nothingness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle since all of it's properties would be known.

Yes, pure nothingness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle since all of it's properties would be known.

By definition there are no properties to know. Aside from some mathematical models that support the idea, the relevant philosophical argument is simply that something exists because nothing is an impossibility. Another way to put it would be to say that nothing is a perfectly unstable state (which by definition can not exist).

No properties is still a property.

No properties is still a property.

Victor Stenger would say that you are playing word games, and so would I.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing

Not to mention a logical impossibility... a set that is empty yet includes itself?

;)

If an n-particle state can be described, then so can a state with n = 0.

Cause and effect is the null hypothesis in our physical reality. I would be very interested in scientific demonstration of a real effect (an actual event with a beginning) that verifiably has no cause. :)

The ground state must have no cause, as there could be nothing before it to have effect on it.

See ‘The Theory of Nothing’:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254

I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, but I do read Victor Stenger!

...The Uncertainty Principle also changes our conception of the vacuum. Quantum uncertainty does not allow us to say that a volume of space is empty or contains nothing. Such a statement has no operational meaning. The quantum vacuum is therefore defined differently, as the lowest energy state available to the system locally. (http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/heisenberg-s-uncertainty-principle)

Signal,

will I be getting a reply to this?


Ok, it would help if you explained how someone that does not believe in a god does believe in the creation of life with intent.
I (shallow as I am) see no other explanation than that you believe that some intelligent being must have created life. Otherwise it would be impossible to speak of intent.


I was describing what you, as an atheist, believe that theists believe.

You yourself said:



I think many theists would say that this is a shallow idea of what theism is about.

IOW, theists would tend to believe that it takes a lot more than just "believing in God" in order to be a theist. (Namely, that there has to be daily activity that is in line with "believing in God".)


It seems to me that you are confusing 'having religion' with 'being a theist'.


You are forgetting that I am not a hardcore atheist, so I don't subscribe to atheist definitions of things.


Those are not atheist definitions :bugeye:

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

It's not clear how anyone can be a theist without having a religion.

It's not clear how anyone can be a theist without having a religion.

It's not clear?? Do you see those definitions?
A person can independently (i.e. without adhering to a specific religion) believe in a god. Surely you're not disputing that..

Furthermore, it seems to me that you are one of those persons.

Belief in God is not religion.

Riiight. Atheists have no notion of "highest authority". They live in total chaos. :rolleyes:

wow

This is surprisingly disingenuous for you Signal....

Talk about a false dichotomy....

It's not clear how anyone can be a theist without having a religion.
What's not clear? You've never met a non-religious theist? From my observations, most theists are not religious.

wow

This is surprisingly disingenuous for you Signal....

Talk about a false dichotomy....

If you believe that the concept of "highest authority" makes sense, then you also think there is something that occupies or can or should occupy that position.

Without a notion of highest authority, there is chaos.

It's not clear?? Do you see those definitions?
A person can independently (i.e. without adhering to a specific religion) believe in a god. Surely you're not disputing that..

Yes I am disputing that.

If a feral child would come up with the notion of God and would have an according specific practice, then I would believe that it is possible to "believe in God without adhering to a specific religious tradition".



Furthermore, it seems to me that you are one of those persons.

Nonsense. I can trace all my conscious concepts of God to specific religious traditions.

If you believe that the concept of "highest authority" makes sense, then you also think there is something that occupies or can or should occupy that position.

Without a notion of highest authority, there is chaos.

I reckon that, for most people, the highest authority is the law..

Yes I am disputing that.

If a feral child would come up with the notion of God and would have an according specific practice, then I would believe that it is possible to "believe in God without adhering to a specific religious tradition".
Perhaps you should do some asking around then. There are loads of people that reject religion but still believe in god.


Nonsense. I can trace all my conscious concepts of God to specific religious traditions.
And yet you believe in an intelligent creator, because you believe that life was created with intent, is it not?

If you believe that the concept of "highest authority" makes sense, then you also think there is something that occupies or can or should occupy that position.

Without a notion of highest authority, there is chaos.


So then there should be a massive overrepresentation of atheists in American prisons for instance right?

http://i55.tinypic.com/9bdvn7.jpg


http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

And yet you believe in an intelligent creator, because you believe that life was created with intent, is it not?

No.
Like I said, I can trace all my conscious concepts of God to specific religious traditions.

So then there should be a massive overrepresentation of atheists in American prisons for instance right?

If people turned to crime, then they weren't particularly religious to begin with; and many inmates turn to religion during prison time. These are two reasons why the statistics on prison religiosity need to be taken with caution.

If people turned to crime, then they weren't particularly religious to begin with
Google "No true Scotsman".

:shrug:

One might wish to say how it is that an ultimate Being just happens to have been sitting around, fully intact, forever.

Falsification arrives via self-contradiction, for this complexity, infinite even, of the supposed elemental Fellow could not be fundamental and first, for what made it up would have to be even more so. Even we took 14 billion years to get where we are.

Look to the complete other direction, to the far future, for some higher mind evolving, rather than to the simpler states beneath it all.

Yes, I think it's highly plausible. Although evolution isn't strictly speaking chance, our existence was a bit hit or miss. There is one small fossil that it said to contain the first rudiments of a backbone. If that animal had never been successful (and the vast majority of species are not) no vertebrate animals would exist.
so are you saying it brakes down to success rates of return then . And is success determined by intent . The intent plays a big roll in success maybe ? We can use human determination for an example were as the intent of human activity is to adapt to environment there by insuring human survival , which is the intent of the species as a whole

so are you saying it brakes down to success rates of return then . And is success determined by intent . The intent plays a big roll in success maybe ? We can use human determination for an example were as the intent of human activity is to adapt to environment there by insuring human survival , which is the intent of the species as a whole

Evolution is still a 'design', but one without a Designer or a designer person.

If global warming, say, arrives in a really big way, perhaps then some of those already near the equator who are extra used to heat may survive better.

One might say that we become fine-tuned to the Earth and its conditions, not any other way around. Weather and climate has no real intent.

Weather and climate has no real intent.
Rain doesn't fall for the flowers, rain just falls.

Google "No true Scotsman".

Then you have a very shallow understanding of religion.
As if declaring oneself religious necessarily means that one is religious ...

Then you have a very shallow understanding of religion.
As if declaring oneself religious necessarily means that one is religious ...
Who are you to judge?

Mod Note;

Annnyways.. getting back on topic....

Who are you to judge?

But you can?

Evolution is still a 'design', but one without a Designer or a designer person.

If global warming, say, arrives in a really big way, perhaps then some of those already near the equator who are extra used to heat may survive better.

One might say that we become fine-tuned to the Earth and its conditions, not any other way around. Weather and climate has no real intent.
Yes it does . Weather and climate that is . The intent is growth . I am a designer person, you might be too. We can be Gods created by humans my Man . I am a Guitar God and you can be the Writer painter God if you work at it hard enough . You can create . What a marvelous thing it is to be able to create . Builders now we are the greatest of Gods. We turn mountains into valleys and things like that . Excavators do our bidding . I try to limit the excavators impact on earth by trying to Design structures that integrate with the environment my self, so the structures look like they blend with instead of fight against . Another thing to consider is migration routs of other animals . It is all part of good stewardship. Consider how the larger cities are an impermeable blockage of environment by its vast occupation of a large space and if it was on a migration rout how that effects the globe , or building in water sheds . Now that is just plan stupid design , but still design by designer people . Manifest destiny by goal setting . Haphazardly maybe , Ill-Intentions possibly, Intent is followed through by action non the less. Human determination affects nature and the super human of the future will consider this if they live through these barbaric times of human design

:shrug:

Our existence is a result of the laws of physics... not chance or intent. Do I find that compelling? Absolutely, simply because reality verifies that it is true.

But you can?
I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy. Personally, I take people at their word. If they claim to be religious, who am I to claim otherwise?

I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy. Personally, I take people at their word. If they claim to be religious, who am I to claim otherwise?

But when they say that God is real and that you are wrong not to believe in Him -
then you don't take their word for it?

If people turned to crime, then they weren't particularly religious to begin with; and many inmates turn to religion during prison time. These are two reasons why the statistics on prison religiosity need to be taken with caution.

Are you the one who also said that atheists claim moral highground? Pretty ironic don't you think?

If a person says he's religious, I'm pretty sure he's at least 99% certain to really be religious unless there's some sort of pressure on him to lie about it that I'm not aware of. Like the police holding a gun to his head while filling out the questionaire and forcing him to pick a certain denomination. I find this pretty hard to believe. But I guess people have believed in stranger things before.

I should've known that facts would just bounce off you like a rubber ball. I don't know why I even bother.

But when they say that God is real and that you are wrong not to believe in Him -
then you don't take their word for it?
I believe they they believe that god is real.


Are you the one who also said that atheists claim moral highground? Pretty ironic don't you think?
I agree, the hypocrisy is pretty thick around here.

Oh and at the original post. The truth is nobody knows how the universe or life came into being. I guess we can make up stories that are somewhat plausible and believe in those. But seriously why bother? Why not try and figure it out instead of fighting wars over which holy book is the right one?

Also, who cares which explanation is more compelling or appealing to the human psyche?

I don't find either explanation compelling.

We were made, so? We weren't made, so?

We're here, we suck oxygen for a brief period of time, then we get to rot. That does not change.

No.
Like I said, I can trace all my conscious concepts of God to specific religious traditions.

No what? Give straight answers for a change.

You DO believe that life was created with intent. Right or wrong?

Can one be christian and not believe in purpose?

Are you the one who also said that atheists claim moral highground? Pretty ironic don't you think?

Do some atheists not claim they have the moral highground?

:shrug:

Personally, I take people at their word. If they claim to be religious, who am I to claim otherwise?

So when a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?

Or do you reserve your "I take people at their word" only when it comes to those who claim to be religious?

Also, who cares which explanation is more compelling or appealing to the human psyche?

Some humans do ...

Do some atheists not claim they have the moral highground?

:shrug:

I must say I've never heard this... But i just saw you claiming it on behalf of religion.

The truth is nobody knows how the universe or life came into being.

Talk about claiming the highground! :rolleyes:

Talk about claiming the highground! :rolleyes:
Do you know?

No what? Give straight answers for a change.

You DO believe that life was created with intent. Right or wrong?

No, I do not believe in an intelligent creator because I would also believe that life was created with intent.

I do not believe in an intelligent creator, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.
I do not believe that life was created with intent, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.

No, I do not believe in an intelligent creator because I would also believe that life was created with intent.

I do not believe in an intelligent creator, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.
I do not believe that life was created with intent, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.

Finally, thank you.

So if you do not believe that life was created with intent, what was this post about?

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...

I find it hard to believe that you are not functional in day-to-day life. Although I could be wrong of course.

talk about claiming the highground! :rolleyes:

huh??

No, I do not believe in an intelligent creator because I would also believe that life was created with intent.

I do not believe in an intelligent creator, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.
I do not believe that life was created with intent, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.

Signal,

Example: I want to program an automatic milling machine to create 140 surface variations on a piece of metal. Then, I program the milling machine to create 4 surface variations on another piece of metal. Which program contains more instructions?

Or: I have a string of DNA that already codes for a complete organism. It is a fish. I now want to add lungs. Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.

1) Archaeologists find objects in the ground all the time.
2) They can determine that a piece of dried clay is a piece of dried clay or a shard of pottery. They can determine if a triangular rock is a triangular rock or an arrowhead.
3) If a complex, mechanical and symmetrical object were found on Mars, I wouldn't say God made it but it would be an obvious example of Intelligent Design.
4) Non-theists would accept the fact that an intelligence made an artificial object found on another planet even if there was no trace of the maker.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.
Unfortunately for you, it can.


1) Archaeologists find objects in the ground all the time.
2) They can determine that a piece of dried clay is a piece of dried clay or a shard of pottery. They can determine if a triangular rock is a triangular rock or an arrowhead.
3) If a complex, mechanical and symmetrical object were found on Mars, I wouldn't say God made it but it would be an obvious example of Intelligent Design.
4) Non-theists would accept the fact that an intelligence made an artificial object found on another planet even if there was no trace of the maker.
lol the watchmaker argument :rolleyes:

Signal,

Example: I want to program an automatic milling machine to create 140 surface variations on a piece of metal. Then, I program the milling machine to create 4 surface variations on another piece of metal. Which program contains more instructions?

Or: I have a string of DNA that already codes for a complete organism. It is a fish. I now want to add lungs. Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.

1) Archaeologists find objects in the ground all the time.
2) They can determine that a piece of dried clay is a piece of dried clay or a shard of pottery. They can determine if a triangular rock is a triangular rock or an arrowhead.
3) If a complex, mechanical and symmetrical object were found on Mars, I wouldn't say God made it but it would be an obvious example of Intelligent Design.
4) Non-theists would accept the fact that an intelligence made an artificial object found on another planet even if there was no trace of the maker.

What's your point?

Seriously Signal. Explain to me how I am claiming moral highground by that quote.

So when a person shows up at your door, claiming to be your long lost father - you just take this person's word for it, and don't claim otherwise?
Or when someone you meet at the supermarket claims to be a doctor and gives you medical advice - do you just believe them, with no concern about their expertise and credentials?

Or do you reserve your "I take people at their word" only when it comes to those who claim to be religious?
This is a stupid analogy. How old are you? 12?

Your entire objection was based on the the stats of how many Xians are in jail as opposed to atheists. The better question is, do these stats differ from the general population?

What's your point?
My point is design exist. How about the designer?

This is a stupid analogy. How old are you? 12?

Your entire objection was based on the the stats of how many Xians are in jail as opposed to atheists. The better question is, do these stats differ from the general population?

And for some reason, you still insist that if someone claims to be religious, they are to be considered as religious. :rolleyes:

My point is design exist. How about the designer?

What do you wish to accomplish by telling me this?

And for some reason, you still insist that if someone claims to be religious, they are to be considered as religious. :rolleyes:
Do you know what's inside a man's heart/mind? I can answer that for you, no you don't.

Do you know what's inside a man's heart/mind? I can answer that for you, no you don't.

So you seek reasons to believe whether someone who claims to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a mechanic, really is a doctor, a lawyer, or a mechanic -
but you don't apply this scrutiny when it comes to religiousness.

Any crook could come by and claim he is religious, and you would believe he is religious.

Why?

If you look at the natural laws of chemistry, there are inherant designs within these laws, even before the designs exists in reality. For example, if you went to a planet that contained high temperature steam in its atmosphere, I predict that when that planet cools liquid water will condense. This phase change design was set even before there was liquid water on that planet, since water condenses at 100C.

The design called the condensation of water is not random. In other words, cooling the steam will not result in endless phases of water. It results in liquid water; very specific. It would not be a very intelligent design if each time it was different; that would be dumb design.

Even when the universe was inflating from the BB, isotopes of hydrogen would eventually be used for nuclear fusion. If we did it again, we get the same phase change design. That design was already there (predictable by the nature of matter), even before subparticles became hydrogen. The fact that we can predict, implies there is already a cause and effect at work, even before it occurs.

What you call design I call the laws of physics. Again (for the umpteenth time) if infinite complexity (God) can exist without a cause, then so can the laws of physics (the universe).

Forget about God for a moment and elevate the universe itself to the top of the hierarchy. It is "god" (albeit it one without a personality).

You are not required to believe this of course, but it serves to demonstrate the impotency of your argument.

No, I do not believe in an intelligent creator because I would also believe that life was created with intent.

I do not believe in an intelligent creator, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.
I do not believe that life was created with intent, I merely know some arguments that could support such a notion.

Finally, thank you.

So if you do not believe that life was created with intent, what was this post about?

What I find more peculiar is how come people can claim that our existence came by chance and not intent - and still remain functional in day-to-day life ...

I find it hard to believe that you are not functional in day-to-day life. Although I could be wrong of course.

:shrug:

If you look at the natural laws of chemistry, there are inherant designs within these laws, even before the designs exists in reality. For example, if you went to a planet that contained high temperature steam in its atmosphere, I predict that when that planet cools liquid water will condense. This phase change design was set even before there was liquid water on that planet, since water condenses at 100C.

The design called the condensation of water is not random. In other words, cooling the steam will not result in endless phases of water. It results in liquid water; very specific. It would not be a very intelligent design if each time it was different; that would be dumb design.

Even when the universe was inflating from the BB, isotopes of hydrogen would eventually be used for nuclear fusion. If we did it again, we get the same phase change design. That design was already there (predictable by the nature of matter), even before subparticles became hydrogen. The fact that we can predict, implies there is already a cause and effect at work, even before it occurs.

but that really doesn't have anything to do with intentional design. it just can appear to be. the way certain laws interact with their properties will have a cause and effect.

hypothetically, we could say the laws of this universe were an accident which for what we can tell is a four dimensional universe. perhaps the so-called big bang was an accident or the result of a collision.

perhaps another universe has a million dimensions or only one. taking this view we can clearly see that it does not have to be an intentional design. it may not be a design at all but just a result.

but that really doesn't have anything to do with intentional design. it just can appear to be. the way certain laws interact with their properties will have a cause and effect.

hypothetically, we could say the laws of this universe were an accident which for what we can tell is a four dimensional universe. perhaps the so-called big bang was an accident or the result of a collision.

perhaps another universe has a million dimensions or only one. taking this view we can clearly see that it does not have to be an intentional design. it may not be a design at all but just a result.Aye - as the great Douglas Adams once said:

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise"

So you seek reasons to believe whether someone who claims to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a mechanic, really is a doctor, a lawyer, or a mechanic -
but you don't apply this scrutiny when it comes to religiousness.

Any crook could come by and claim he is religious, and you would believe he is religious.

Why?
Because it is irrelevant to me. I don't attach any special attribute to claims of being religious.

but that really doesn't have anything to do with intentional design. it just can appear to be. the way certain laws interact with their properties will have a cause and effect.

hypothetically, we could say the laws of this universe were an accident which for what we can tell is a four dimensional universe. perhaps the so-called big bang was an accident or the result of a collision.

perhaps another universe has a million dimensions or only one. taking this view we can clearly see that it does not have to be an intentional design. it may not be a design at all but just a result.

As Signal noted, well said birch.

And thanks for getting us back on topic.

The attribution of intent to any system is always fraught with problems. We can barely (logically) do it ourselves for our own artifices, let alone something of natural origin. Nonetheless, the notion of an evolved order is much more 'compelling' a concept than the alternative.

Because it is irrelevant to me. I don't attach any special attribute to claims of being religious.

I thought you would, given what you said earlier -




We want to know what these values and beliefs are. People are trying to shove their mythology into the science classes of the schools that my taxes pay for. I don't want that to happen. So I am trying to understand what drives seemingly rational humans to do that.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2722333&postcount=122

As Signal noted, well said birch.

You mean Sarkus. :o



The attribution of intent to any system is always fraught with problems. We can barely (logically) do it ourselves for our own artifices, let alone something of natural origin. Nonetheless, the notion of an evolved order is much more 'compelling' a concept than the alternative.

Any attribution is potentially fraught with problems.

At the same time, we have a keen sense that something is empowering, or demoralizing; and that demoralization is morally undesirable.

Humans are moral beings too, not just scientific ones.

I thought you would, given what you said earlier -
I know many religious people who are not trying to change the science cirriculum. It seems to be a small but vocal minority of the fundamentalist branch of Christianity that wants to force their beliefs down everyone else's throat.

FWIW - All religious people are not alike... just like everyone else. :D

What do you wish to accomplish by telling me this?
If I read you correctly, intelligent design is not the same as creationism.

Yes - the theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

If I read you correctly, intelligent design is not the same as creationism.
But originated from, and is pushed by, creationists.


Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design
ID is not a scientific theory.


In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
ID has no merits.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
What would be an example of a "natural" intelligent designer?

Why?
And, once again: why are you harping on about caused/ uncaused when the OP (YOUR OP) asks about intent?
Consider two eagle chicks. One is normal while the other has a mutation that means it is blind. Which eagle chick is the more likely to survive and have offspring, the sighted chick or the blind chick? Is this result random? That is natural selection. It is not random and it is not intelligent.

Put some soil through a sieve. Small pieces fall through while larger pieces do not. Not random and not intelligent. Natural selection is like a sieve; DNA which reproduces passes through to the next generation, DNA which does not reproduce does not pass through to the next generation.

This is interesting: Seems like purpose is involved here.

Like Products, Plants Wait for Optimal Configuration Before Market Success

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110329134343.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011) — An international research team led by Brown University has amassed the largest evolutionary tree (phylogeny) for plants. It has learned that major groups of plants tinker with their design and performance before rapidly spinning off new species. The finding upends long-held thinking that plants' speciation rates are tied to the first development of a new physical trait or mechanism.

more... (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110329134343.htm)

Consider two eagle blah blah blah
Could you try answering my question?

I know many religious people who are not trying to change the science cirriculum. It seems to be a small but vocal minority of the fundamentalist branch of Christianity that wants to force their beliefs down everyone else's throat.

FWIW - All religious people are not alike... just like everyone else. :D

http://ts-si.org/horizons/28708-us-high-school-biology-resists-evolutionary-biology

University Park, PA, USA. The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution.

There is considerable research showing that supporters of scientific methods and evolution — and even reason itself — are steadily losing out in America's classrooms, according to a new analysis by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State (http://www.psu.edu/). Their analysis appears in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/magazine).

http://ts-si.org/horizons/28708-us-high-school-biology-resists-evolutionary-biology
From your own link:


Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.


Berkman and Plutzer conclude that "the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments." As a result, "they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists."

What do you wish to accomplish by telling me this?
If I read you correctly, intelligent design is not the same as creationism.

Yes - the theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

My point is that a discussion about the intent that may be behind our existence, does not actually lead to belief in God.

To me, as far as coming to have faith in God is concerned, the Hidden Watchmaker Argument is no different than using the supposed historicity of Jesus (as poposed by historiography, archaeology), for example.

Whether you lay out the scenario of how things and beings seem to exist with intent, or whether you show me old texts mentioning Jesus: neither convinces me of Jesus' divinity or the existence of God.
(Although I have the impression that you expect me to become convinced by that.)

My point is that a discussion about the intent that may be behind our existence, does not actually lead to belief in God.

To me, as far as coming to have faith in God is concerned, the Hidden Watchmaker Argument is no different than using the supposed historicity of Jesus (as poposed by historiography, archaeology), for example.

Whether you lay out the scenario of how things and beings seem to exist with intent, or whether you show me old texts mentioning Jesus: neither convinces me of Jesus' divinity or the existence of God.
(Although I have the impression that you expect me to become convinced by that.)
No, I don't expect you to become convinced. I can't change your views.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
I guess I missed it when you answered my question first time...

What would be an example of a "natural" intelligent designer?