 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Question to supporters of Intelligent Design |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| AbhiEJeet |
 Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To develope intelligent design, god must think. To think, thinking
mechanism must exist first. But since god created everything, thinking
mechanism can not exist prior to him.
Now to create thinking mechanism, god must think.
But how can he think without thinking mechanism, eh? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kathryn |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"AbhiEJeet" <AbhiEJeet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140358742.647496.138750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:d9d3476276]To develope intelligent design, god must think. To think, thinking
mechanism must exist first. But since god created everything, thinking
mechanism can not exist prior to him.
Now to create thinking mechanism, god must think.
But how can he think without thinking mechanism, eh?
[/quote:d9d3476276]
Actually Id be going simpler
If god designed us, why is it such a crap design? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| quibbler |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1140358742.647496.138750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
AbhiEJeet@gmail.com says...
[quote:c3cd757a2b]To develope intelligent design, god must think. To think, thinking
mechanism must exist first. But since god created everything, thinking
mechanism can not exist prior to him.
Now to create thinking mechanism, god must think.
[/quote:c3cd757a2b]
Yes, clearly, god cannot have "designed" himself at least as far as the
complete thinking apparatus goes. And from what we know, the thinking
part of a being is often the most complex component. So people who say
that "life is too complex to have evolved" need to ask themselves why
something as complex as god is just presumed to exist by magic.
[quote:c3cd757a2b]
But how can he think without thinking mechanism, eh?
[/quote:c3cd757a2b]
All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator. Almost all
of them simply assume that the creator somehow necessarily existed, was
eternal, etc. But they end up having to make more and more assumptions,
since the ability to create assumes that causes can precede effects in
time and this assumes that time also exists, which additionally creates
the problem of how a creator can be outside of time, if being part of
time is such an essential property of being a creator. Finally, the
whole "design" nonsense assumes that thinking about something is
sufficient, but in the world we know thinking is useless without
implementation of the ideas in tangible form. So there also have to be
mechanisms to implement the design.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
1. fundies are like "libertarians"; they don't answer on point
questions (unlike "libertarians" they don't even respond with
irrelevant material, flames, etc.)
2. the way to jump start fundies' brains is to use free speech on
economic issues.
3. they could alway say God always existed, even before anything else
was created.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
< All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 19 Feb 2006 10:31:17 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Bret Cahill"
<BretCahill@aol.com> in
<1140373877.866303.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[quote:58f92e5a4b]All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
[/quote:58f92e5a4b]
Sorry, but defining it does not make it so.
[quote:58f92e5a4b]Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
[/quote:58f92e5a4b]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Denis Loubet |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140373877.866303.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:4fa358b409]All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
[/quote:4fa358b409]
Scientists have the intellectual integrity to answer "I don't know" and
admit their ignorance.
Do you have the same courage?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| quibbler |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1140373877.866303.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
BretCahill@aol.com says...
[quote:fb580d8879]All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity
[/quote:fb580d8879]
No, you've simply attempted to perform a legal change of name upon the
universe. The universe is the singularity. There is no indication that
the singularity was sentience or wanted its son to die on a piece of wood
14 billion years in the future.
[quote:fb580d8879]. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
[/quote:fb580d8879]
No, that's why the universe didn't need to be created. Because it always
existed. The singularity was just a highly degenerate form of the
universe which could not exist in that unstable state indefinitely.
[quote:fb580d8879]
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
[/quote:fb580d8879]
You don't need a little man running on a treadmill to make things happen
and you don't need a creator for the "big bang". I've already explained
that the concept of "creation" is incoherent before time (and therefore
space) existed, since creating assumes causal events which have to
precede effects in time. Thus, there could be no meaningful "cause" or
"creation" of the universe from a singularity. Why do you think that
events can't simply happen without some other event called a "cause"
preceding them? Causality is a useless model for describing the beginning
of a universe, as it makes no sense and explains nothing.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Vic |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
on 19 Feb 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Bret Cahill
(BretCahill@aol.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
[quote:3932b8e0d5]All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He
didn't need to be created.
[/quote:3932b8e0d5]
God, by his very definition, is also omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yet
we still have evil. Obviously definitions mean nothing when referring
to supernatural beings.
[quote:3932b8e0d5]
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
[/quote:3932b8e0d5]
If the god doesn't need a creator, it defeats the premise that
everything needs a creator. Therefore the Big Bang didn't necessarily
need a creator.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Official alt.wisdom HELLBOY |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| wbarwell |
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
quibbler wrote:
[quote:198e25ea00]In article <1140358742.647496.138750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
AbhiEJeet@gmail.com says...
To develope intelligent design, god must think. To think, thinking
mechanism must exist first. But since god created everything, thinking
mechanism can not exist prior to him.
Now to create thinking mechanism, god must think.
Yes, clearly, god cannot have "designed" himself at least as far as the
complete thinking apparatus goes. And from what we know, the thinking
part of a being is often the most complex component. So people who say
that "life is too complex to have evolved" need to ask themselves why
something as complex as god is just presumed to exist by magic.
[/quote:198e25ea00]
Ancient xian dogma states that god is simple, that is he does
not have parts. He is a unitary whole.
http://www.saintaquinas.com/article5.html
This is an odd idea but had a reason for its creation.
If god had parts, he would not be primal, he would
be composed of various parts each itself something
god as a whole would rely on to become whole.
Each part therefore would be a god-like thing in and
of itself. But not a supreme god.
This also cause problems such as what are these parts?
And complications such as essences vs qualities, especially
emergent qualities.
All these things have consequences to claims made
about god.
One claim is, God is a spirirt, and spirits don't
have parts. How about devils, pookahs, leprechauns,
pixies and other spirits?
And of course the big, how does one know spirits have
no parts?
An interesting subject with many embaressing ramifications.
This all became dogma in the 4th century.
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stu |
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2006-02-19 10:31:17 -0800, "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> said:
[quote:4cdb7aeb90]All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
Bret Cahill
[/quote:4cdb7aeb90]
Why does the world have to be defined by our limited temporal
perceptions? We know that space-time is relative. For a photon
released during the singularity and landing on our retina now from our
point of took 22 billion years, but from the point of view of the
photon no time has passed. At light speeds there is no time.
Human's create artifacts from nature. We build cars, computers, art,
and so on. There appears to be a linear progression to this process.
Raw materials are transformed into artifacts in that order. Cause and
effect or the order of the human day.
But it does not mean that nature operates on that limited linear
temporal scope. Observation tells us that nature is spontaneous and
non-linear. Cause and effect a consequence of human perception.
The question of who created what shouldn't even come up.
--
~Stu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:16 pm |
|
|
|
|
quibbler wrote:
[quote:b11fa7bd1e]In article <1140373877.866303.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
BretCahill@aol.com says...
All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity
No, you've simply attempted to perform a legal change of name upon the
universe. The universe is the singularity. There is no indication that
the singularity was sentience or wanted its son to die on a piece of wood
14 billion years in the future.
[/quote:b11fa7bd1e]
God is the Universe. :-)
Or maybe the medichlorians.  heheheh! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill |
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If the question/answer doesn't lead anywhere new or resolve anything,
why bother?
It's like the late 20th Century ACLU "free speech" cases, i. e., KKK
and nazi parades, flag burning, etc. Not a single "free speech" case
involved economic information. The only plausible conclusion is they
were deployed by corp. shills to dumb down the public about the
constitution, to keep the public out of the public debate.
Bret Cahill
"You cannot extracate yourself from decadence by waging war against
it."
-- Nietzsche |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| stoney |
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:44:59 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
[quote:78cb9d40a5]on 19 Feb 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Bret Cahill
(BretCahill@aol.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He
didn't need to be created.
God, by his very definition, is also omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yet
we still have evil. Obviously definitions mean nothing when referring
to supernatural beings.
[/quote:78cb9d40a5]
You mean fictional beings, which set supernatural resides in.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| stoney |
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:41:59 -0800, Stu <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
[quote:50f6e74afe]On 2006-02-19 10:31:17 -0800, "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> said:
All creationism has the problem of the origin of the creator.
God, by His very definition, is The Singularity. That's why He didn't
need to be created.
Moreover, the Big Bang raises similar questions like Who created the
Big Bang?
Bret Cahill
Why does the world have to be defined by our limited temporal
perceptions? We know that space-time is relative. For a photon
released during the singularity and landing on our retina now from our
point of took 22 billion years, but from the point of view of the
photon no time has passed. At light speeds there is no time.
Human's create artifacts from nature. We build cars, computers, art,
and so on. There appears to be a linear progression to this process.
Raw materials are transformed into artifacts in that order. Cause and
effect or the order of the human day.
But it does not mean that nature operates on that limited linear
temporal scope. Observation tells us that nature is spontaneous and
non-linear. Cause and effect a consequence of human perception.
The question of who created what shouldn't even come up.
[/quote:50f6e74afe]
Because it begs many questions and is broken logic.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:05 am
|
|