Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Writer@Large · 03-19-2002, 08:16 AM

Oh, no, not again ...

And Oolon:

you beat me to it!!!

Now, I need to dog through the archives and see if I can finally get some straight answers ...

--W@L

Jonesy · 03-19-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:
Oh, no, not again ...

And Oolon:

you beat me to it!!!

Now, I need to dog through the archives and see if I can finally get some straight answers ...

--W@L

I don't see how that furthers the topic I've started

but then everyone's different...and allowed to say anything, no matter how off the point

Kosh · 03-19-2002, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:


First of all it's not a cult and what you are referring to as a 'cult' is not even mine, as you seem to suggest

Are you saying you're not the Thiaoouba who
sells tshirts and promotes UFOs?

MrDarwin · 03-19-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
Hi,

it seems to me that, looking at the debate over the last couple of years, there are some possibilities as to how the universe with everything in it came to be

The origin of god poses pretty much the same problem as the origin of the universe. If an intelligent (and presumably extremely complex) deity can be self-originating, then why can't the universe?

But why just one god? Why not several, a team project as it were, as many of the world's religions have believed through human history?

Dr Rick · 03-19-2002, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
...everything humans design is less advanced than some natural processes which have existed for millions of years, such as gravity.

Humans are more much more advanced than gravity as the former is cognizant and can consciously manipulate the physical world.

Quote:

Why don't we fully understand these processes? Is it because we are NOT YET intelligent enough to understand these processes?

It's possible that we are more than intelligent enough but simply require more data than we currently have.

Quote:

But, if someday we reach a stage at which we can do anything in the universe, then this means that we would have reached some level of intelligence which we initially, back in the 21st century, thought that 'established itself'.

It seems more likely that we would have just learned more to get to that "stage." Becoming more "intelligent" would require selective pressures and random mutations on the human species that favor this trait.

Quote:

But isn't strange that to GET to that future level of knowledge, we cannot actually WAIT OURSELVES for this intelligence to establish itself in our minds - we actually have to GET SMARTER OURSELVES with intelligent conscious effort?

This is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Mageth · 03-19-2002, 09:52 AM

Quote:

So, what you are saying is that the rules were ALWAYS there? Don't you think that there HAD TO be a starting point for these rules?

I'm saying you can't separate the "rules" from the "substance" to which these rules apply. Take gravity, for instance. It conforms to a set of "rules." And yet gravity, and its associated set of "rules," are part of the basic properties of matter. There was no "starting point" for the rules separate from the matter.

The set of "rules" that allow for the emergence of complexity in the universe, likewise, are part and parcel of the universe. Certain of the rules may not appear until the proper condition is establised (e.g. a particular organization of the "substance"), but they are "there" in view of the fact that they emerge under the proper condition. They aren't created; they're inherent in the nature of the universe.

Quote:

In our world today, there is NOT ONE RULE that has no starting point. Rules are created everywhere you look in the modern society. What your argument is saying is that, even though the primitive rules of the modern world are always created by us humans, the 'more intelligent' rules that govern the universe 'were always there' (?) The above logic suggests that rules that are obviously too complex for us to yet understand need a starting point.

The "above logic" is flawed:

1) Human-made rules all have starting points
2) There are "more intelligent" rules that govern the universe
3) Therefore, the rules that govern the universe must have a starting point (e.g. a "designer", if I understand what you're trying to say).

The primary flaw that I see (I'm sure others can do a more formal logical deconstruction) is an error in classification - the old apples-to-oranges problem. Society and human-created "rules" are not comparable to the universe and "rules" of the natural universe.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-19-2002, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
[QB]So, what you are saying is that the rules were ALWAYS there? Don't you think that there HAD TO be a starting point for these rules?

No.

Quote:

In our world today, there is NOT ONE RULE that has no starting point. Rules are created everywhere you look in the modern society.

Human rules and laws are different from physics. The comparison is trivially equivocal.

Writer@Large · 03-19-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
I don't see how that furthers the topic I've started

but then everyone's different...and allowed to say anything, no matter how off the point

Sorry, Thiaoouba, but your MO never changes, and I can already see it in the conversation you've started here. I'm just waiting for the point where you claim to have the real answer, and plug that stupid e-book.

[BTW, if anyone's interested in my previous foray into the world of Thiaoouba, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=000027" target="_blank">the archived thread is here</a>.]

--W@L

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

Writer@Large · 03-19-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
 The above logic suggests that rules that are obviously too complex for us to yet understand need a starting point.

Tell us then, O Thiaoouba, in what e-book of wisdom can we find the answer to the question, "where did the universe start?"

--W@L

hinduwoman · 03-19-2002, 05:58 PM

Intelligent Design is posiible, but where is the proof? All solid proof points towards natural creation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2002, 08:16 AM	#11
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Oh, no, not again ... And Oolon: you beat me to it!!! Now, I need to dog through the archives and see if I can finally get some straight answers ... --W@L

03-19-2002, 05:58 PM	#20
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Intelligent Design is posiible, but where is the proof? All solid proof points towards natural creation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.