Post #12349 keeps disappearing and reappearing.
Weird ...
Sylvia
The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer
by cantleave 140 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Deputy Dog
Jeff
Same thing. Sky-daddy did it - we don't know how, we don't know why, but it was the magic work of Sky-daddy whom we never get to see, hear, or feel. Sky-daddy is magic.
Wrong again! Knowing or not knowing "how" and "why" doesn't change the debate as to "WHAT" or "WHO" did the creating.
There are many things that you can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste, that can kill you. Do you doubt they exist? I would say it is likely that there are many things and forces that we are unaware of, in other parts of our universe, not to mention things and forces outside of our universe. bohmI studied physics. There are no law of causality in the sence you apply it, at least no physical law.Causality is first and foremost an assumption secondly, its an observation that we appear to have causality at our time/energy levels/etc. But if you want to apply it to the big bang, you got to show some evidence. so thats the first part of the argument.
Good for you! I'm glad you studied physics, but this is a philosophical discussion for the most part. I don't expect to "scientifically prove" anything. You seem to be the one having trouble applying the law of causality.
I define effect as; Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
-
palmtree67
I read a book called "Darwin's Black Box - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe
He is a biochemist who believes that it is this branch of science that will disprove Darwin's idea of evolution.
A quote:
" Since the mid-1950's biochemistry has painstakingly elucidated the workings of life at the molecular level. Darwin was ignorant of the reason for variation within a species (one of the requirements of his theory), but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it. Nineteenth century science could not even guess at the mechanism for vision, immunity or movement, but modern biochemistry has identified the molecules that allow those and other functions.
Life is based on machines - machines made of molecules. These molecular machines haul cargo from once in the cell to another along "highways" made of other molecules, while others act as cables, ropes and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through the nerves. Highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.
The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contempories could answer. They knew that eyes were for seeing - but how, exactly, do they see? How does blood clot? How does the body fight disease? The electron microscope reveals that these complex structures are themselves made up of smaller components. What were these components? What did they look like? How did they work?
The answers to these questions take us out of the realm of biology and into chemistry. Dawkins rightly points out the separability of the components. However, he merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation. This can be compared to answering the question "How is a stereo system made?" with the words "By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio reciever and tape deck." Either Darwinian theory can account for the assembly of the speakers and amplifier, or it can't."
It's a really great book, I recommend reading it.
-
leavingwt
See the link below, for an exhaustive rebuttal to Behe:
-
palmtree67
Thanks, leavingwt!
I will read it later today!!
-
cantleave
Leaving you beat me to it
-
VoidEater
We humans have no context for this. Intuition (e.g., "This computer is easy to use, it's intuitive") comes from past experience and cultural bias, core beliefs that are inculturated into us without our knowledge or awareness.
We have no personal context for stuff coming into existence without a "builder." Our only experience is that "stuff" comes into being through the efforts of a designer and a manufacturer.
We also have no personal context for the immensely long times that evolution takes place within. None of us are alive long enough to observe how successsful sports live longer and reproduce more in a particular environment and less effective individuals die off sooner with less offspring.
While we have no direct observation of God creating things, we do have a heavily biased culture that has inculcated us with beliefs.
With this constellation, I don't think we can get too dogmatic about how life began - not from a "this seems to make sense" point of view. We need to decide what to believe based on the available evidence, not what "seems to intuitively make sense."
There is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis (how life began). I am in awe over the life-patterning capabilities of DNA, how it stores information, how that info is read and converted into living creatures. I can follow the mechanics of DNA changes and how those changes alter future generations.
I'm clueless how the first DNA and processors came into being. I'm willing to wait for some evidence before deciding that came from God, happenstance or space aliens.
As far as where "the dirt" came from - I think we understand the mechanics of the formation of the solar system following the Big Bang. Like abiogenesis, I'm patient about the Big Bang itself.
Conciousness? Lots of interesting theories on that one. ;-)
Deputy Dog: There are many things that you can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste, that can kill you. Do you doubt they exist? I would say it is likely that there are many things and forces that we are unaware of, in other parts of our universe, not to mention things and forces outside of our universe.
Certainly something we are not aware of might exist, but I would challenge the notion that there are things you cannot measure (using our senses or our tools) that can kill you. Also, I would not agree that this is a philosophical discussion.
-
thetrueone
The biggest argument for the evolution of species might very well be the physical evidence of species living today.
On the other hand creationism is entwined with mythology beliefs where there is absolutely no evidence at all,
with exception of course of the spoken word.
-
Deputy Dog
VoidEater
Certainly something we are not aware of might exist, but I would challenge the notion that there are things you cannot measure (using our senses or our tools) that can kill you.
Why do you need tools?
Also, I would not agree that this is a philosophical discussion.
That's funny! But you're entitled to your own presupposition.
-
bohm
DD:
Good for you! I'm glad you studied physics, but this is a philosophical discussion for the most part. I don't expect to "scientifically prove" anything. You seem to be the one having trouble applying the law of causality.
I define effect as; Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
I dont think there is a need for that attitude. You talk about the law of causality that i have a problem applying. So i ask you: In what field is that law formulated? can you point me to some articles where i can read about it? As i said, i have studied physics and mathematics, and i have never heard about it.
Your original statement was:
The law of causality states, that every effect has a cause. God is not an effect so He does not have a cause.
So let me reformulate it:
"The law of monkey-fur states, that every monkey has fur. A bear is not a monkey so it has no fur."
Can you see that your argument is not logical? Also, you say god is not an effect. Is that an axiom (ie how you define God), an observation or a theorem in some "theory of God" in which your argument is stated?
I very much doubt i am the only person who have troubles applying the "law of causality".