Intelligent Design

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 8:59pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.

I’m glad you admit that the universe may in fact be infinite. Given that, your argument that god must exist because the universe is finite doesn’t hold any weight.

Theists can accept events outside the realm of time in the affect of simultaneous causation. Atheists require that each cause precedes it’s effect. It’s this rigidity that weakens the atheist’s argument.

Run that by me again? What does atheism have to do with denying timelessness? It is science that proposed matter and energy are eternal, it is science that proposed the possibility of infinite universes, and it is science that stepped outside of time via the theory of relativity.

Can you think of anything that sits outside the causal chain? If you can find even one tiny thing, you can prove there is no God.

Double-Slit experiment, proving true randomness rather than causality in the slit through which the electron passes. Hence by your own logic, there is no god.

[/quote]

First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists. Wouldn’t disproving causality disprove atheists and forelife?s eternal existence just as much? If a physical cause is not necessary to an event, couldn’t that be an argument for god? Doesn’t that mean that when he argues that each moment being the cause for the following moment isn’t necessarily true? Doesn’t it prove there are things outside of time? Maybe I misunderstand. I guess you are arguing that the universe doesn’t have to have a cause ei god, but to me that just means, it doesn’t have to have a physical cause.

Second, I?m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 9:04pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not what I said at all. I’m saying space and time aren’t real. To say that the universe is infinite in space and time is to quantify something with false measurements. For existence to have always been, time has to be real.

In other words I’m saying a minute isn’t a real unit of measure, and you are inferring that means the universe is infinite minutes old.

If space and time aren’t real, how can the universe have had a beginning as you claimed earlier?[/quote]

Beginning as in origin.

forlife · December 17, 2008, 9:22pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, none of the variables I mentioned were controlled. and tons of assumptions were made about god. Was the control group given a placebo for prayer? Did the other people not get helped by god?
[/quote]

The control group was told nothing about prayer, and nobody prayed for them.

Experimental group A was told nothing about prayer, and a group prayed for them.

Experimental group B was told they were being prayed for, and a group prayed for them.

Very clean, classic experimental design controlling for variables outside the effect of prayer itself.

forlife · December 17, 2008, 9:28pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are going to quantify and predict the the miraculous events of the universe? What prey tell are the odds on existence vs. non-existence? You cannot quantify those types of things.[/quote]

If someone says he can perform miracles, put him in a lab and find out.

I love how all these faith healers cause the blind to see and the lame to walk in their church services, but when you put them in a lab their power coincidentally disappears.

forlife · December 17, 2008, 9:34pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists.[/quote]

Take that up with your friend pat…he made the point and I refuted it.

Causality and randomness are mutually exclusive.

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 9:34pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You are going to quantify and predict the the miraculous events of the universe? What prey tell are the odds on existence vs. non-existence? You cannot quantify those types of things.

If someone says he can perform miracles, put him in a lab and find out.

I love how all these faith healers cause the blind to see and the lame to walk in their church services, but when you put them in a lab their power coincidentally disappears.[/quote]

I don’t believe the people on TV either.

forlife · December 17, 2008, 9:36pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.[/quote]

How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?

forlife · December 17, 2008, 9:38pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t believe the people on TV either.[/quote]

How about the people in your own congregation? They are welcome to sign up for a lab experiment too.

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 4:41pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists.

Take that up with your friend pat…he made the point and I refuted it.

Second, I’m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.

Causality and randomness are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

I disagree about them being mutually exclusive. They define opposite directions of events. Randomness means an that an effect cannot always be predicted by an action. Causality means looking backwards you can’t attribute an effect to a given cause. There is still a cause for the effect observed in the dual slit experiment, the effect is just not always predicted ahead of time.

Secondly the system is not entirely random, it is still bounded.

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 4:42pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.

How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
[/quote]

Because origin is the how and from what, not just the when and where.

DoubleDuce · December 17, 2008, 9:46pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t believe the people on TV either.

How about the people in your own congregation? They are welcome to sign up for a lab experiment too.
[/quote]

Specifically who in my congregation are you speaking about? or are you generalizing me and my faith?

pat · December 17, 2008, 10:41pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.

I’m glad you admit that the universe may in fact be infinite. Given that, your argument that god must exist because the universe is finite doesn’t hold any weight.
[/quote]
Do you know what the word “contingency” means. I never said God must exist because the universe is finite. Those words are yours and you just now said them. Whether or not the universe is infinite is irrelevant if arguing from the point of contingency.

This does not surprise me that you do not understand. Many of your atheistic friends rely on the theory of determinism to support their argument that there is no God. At least these atheists have put in the appropriate effort to support their atheism. You just sound pissed at God is all, for your support and lack of understanding of your own belief system is pretty damn weak.

How has the theory of relativity taken the temporal component out of time.

Science once determined that the earth was flat and all objects in space revolved around the earth.
Point being that not understand the pattern of behavior of sub-atomic particles and them being random are two different things. The experiment seems to show particle-wave duality as constructing light. There is consistency in that even at one particle at a time, it creates the same disturbance pattern. This is not random, it is consistent an reproducible. Not being able to predict the where the sub-atomic particle shows more our lack of understanding of their behavior than anything thing else. Actually, we can predict it we just don’t know why it does what it does. Is the dotted image a reproduction or the particle itself landing in multiple places simultaneously? It is an interesting experiment, but does not lie outside the causal chain.

However it does nothing to dispute the fact that something begot the subatomic particles and the waves. Not knowing how they behave just means we have a lot to learn, but they were certainly brought into existence by something else.

pat · December 17, 2008, 10:53pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.

I’m glad you admit that the universe may in fact be infinite. Given that, your argument that god must exist because the universe is finite doesn’t hold any weight.

Theists can accept events outside the realm of time in the affect of simultaneous causation. Atheists require that each cause precedes it’s effect. It’s this rigidity that weakens the atheist’s argument.

Run that by me again? What does atheism have to do with denying timelessness? It is science that proposed matter and energy are eternal, it is science that proposed the possibility of infinite universes, and it is science that stepped outside of time via the theory of relativity.

Can you think of anything that sits outside the causal chain? If you can find even one tiny thing, you can prove there is no God.

Double-Slit experiment, proving true randomness rather than causality in the slit through which the electron passes. Hence by your own logic, there is no god.

First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists. Wouldn’t disproving causality disprove atheists and forelife?s eternal existence just as much? If a physical cause is not necessary to an event, couldn’t that be an argument for god? Doesn’t that mean that when he argues that each moment being the cause for the following moment isn’t necessarily true? Doesn’t it prove there are things outside of time? Maybe I misunderstand. I guess you are arguing that the universe doesn’t have to have a cause ei god, but to me that just means, it doesn’t have to have a physical cause.

Second, I?m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.[/quote]

It doesn’t. It just shows we don’t understand the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. The results are reproducible and predictable. You shoot sub-atomic particles at a screen with 2 slits and you will get a disturbance pattern. It is not known why, but it is not random.

Causality is essential to the Cosmological argument. But not understanding a phenomenon does not qualify as being random. That’s as dumb as saying that for every event we do not understand God is the direct cause of it.

Randomness does not exist. What we call random is just a lack of knowledge and understanding.

pat · December 17, 2008, 10:55pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.

How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
[/quote]

Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.

pat · December 17, 2008, 10:59pm

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists.

Take that up with your friend pat…he made the point and I refuted it.
[/quote]
All you proved is that people don’t know everything. I already knew that, but thanks for reminding me.

[quote]
Second, I’m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.

Causality and randomness are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

No, they are opposites.

DoubleDuce · December 18, 2008, 4:00am

[quote]pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.