God replacement theory, aka atheism.

[Flannel Jesus]

yours involves mindless formation as well.

Not so, God is an eternal will.

oh i see, i thought you thought god spontaneously formed, but it's eternal, i see.

so then some people could say existence is eternal as well. not every atheist necessarily has to believe in mindless formation.

[statiktech]

Actually V14 is only used in industrial and marine diesels. That means something. Something philosophical. The devil only knows what.

It means the devil loves speed, power, and high emissions. Typical devil...

[Calrid]

Actually V14 is only used in industrial and marine diesels.

I did not know that...

That means something. Something philosophical. The devil only knows what.

Ahggg it's probably something very deep, and very evil, and shit.

[Calrid]

Actually V14 is only used in industrial and marine diesels. That means something. Something philosophical. The devil only knows what.

It means the devil loves speed, power, and high emissions. Typical devil...

Well that's obvious high emissions are guaranteed to produce hellishly hot conditions for an already stupid human race.

[Chester]

How do you propose we disprove God? Claims regarding the existence of God are not falsifiable. Unless, of course, you claim to know exactly what God is and how we can verify.

Also, you're the only one claiming that anything created itself.

Show me God and I'll be a theist.

How do we verify that the universe is infinite, or that it was created mindlessly? All we have is evidence one way or the other, and if the universe is a type of machine then it is logical that something intelligent built it.

I think David stove dealt with Popper's "falsifiability". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stov ... robability

[Chester]

yours involves mindless formation as well.

Not so, God is an eternal will.

oh i see, i thought you thought god spontaneously formed, but it's eternal, i see.

so then some people could say existence is eternal as well. not every atheist necessarily has to believe in mindless formation.

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

[Calrid]

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

No there is none, there is your speculation you seem to think makes evidence filtered by an obvious bias and need to have an intelligence prove your religious foundation and there is the evidence the rest of us understand, cold hard facts.

[felix dakat]

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

Maybe if you defined your terms it would help. What do you mean by law of nature? What do you mean by God? Why is it easier for you to believe that God preexisted everything than a law of nature? Which is more complex? You started out saying that if someone sees that matter differently than you then he's an idiot. So, you should be able to explain what you mean clearly.

You are speaking about God writing stuff down presumably before the beginning of time. Do you mean that literally and if not what are you talking about? Explain how that has meaning as anything but a metaphor. I mean people write down laws. How does hypothesizing that there is a god who writes down laws like people do explain anything? How are you not just asserting that the universe depends on some kind of humanoid because humans are what we are familiar with? Why is a big all powerful humanoid with an intention to do something is a better than admitting that we have no idea and cannot even conceive of the origin of the universe or whatever scientific theories can come up with? I mean I believe that it seems that way to you, but you haven't really explained why.

[Chester]

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

No there is none, there is your speculation you seem to think makes evidence filtered by an obvious bias and need to have an intelligence prove your religious foundation and there is the evidence the rest of us understand, cold hard facts.

trust me, I'm not particularly religious.My point is very simple, if this world is a machine (materialist view) or a program (idealist view) my experience tells me that it is reasonable to believe that there is an intention behind them. Do you not agree that 747's and windows explorer need intention ?

[Calrid]

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

No there is none, there is your speculation you seem to think makes evidence filtered by an obvious bias and need to have an intelligence prove your religious foundation and there is the evidence the rest of us understand, cold hard facts.

trust me, I'm not particularly religious.My point is very simple, if this world is a machine (materialist view) or a program (idealist view) my experience tells me that it is reasonable to believe that there is an intention behind them. Do you not agree that 747's and windows explorer need intention ?

Er that's a sloppy analogy, windows and 747's can be shown with cold hard facts to have been intelligently designed. Although I'd hesitate to call windows intelligently designed given 95,98, Me and Vista.

Who said the world is a machine and what was he on? Who said the world was a program and likewise what had he been on? It's not reasonable to believe the world is either a machine or that it is a program. To tell if it was a machine ie designed by some intelligence you'd have to show clearly there is no possible way such a collection of atoms could of formed without someone to direct it. To prove it was a program you'd have to be outside of it.

[Chester]

Like I have said, there is more evidence for the necessity of intent for the formation of machines/programs than for the idea that they can be built mindlessly.It is also clear that any such God has to exist beyond the laws of nature in order to write them.

Maybe if you defined your terms it would help. What do you mean by law of nature? What do you mean by God? Why is it easier for you to believe that God preexisted everything than a law of nature? Which is more complex? You started out saying that if someone sees that matter differently than you then he's an idiot. So, you should be able to explain what you mean clearly.

You are speaking about God writing stuff down presumably before the beginning of time. Do you mean that literally and if not what are you talking about? Explain how that has meaning as anything but a metaphor. I mean people write down laws. How does hypothesizing that there is a god who writes down laws like people do explain anything? How are you not just asserting that the universe depends on some kind of humanoid because humans are what we are familiar with? Why is a big all powerful humanoid with an intention to do something is a better than admitting that we have no idea and cannot even conceive of the origin of the universe or whatever scientific theories can come up with? I mean I believe that it seems that way to you, but you haven't really explained why.

"Laws of nature" are the predictable facts of this world. God is the source of the intention required for the formation of this world. God must pre-exist that which He creates.A Being is not complex, maybe it is the fundamental foundation of existence?

The idea of God is representative of the fact that we know intention is critical to the formation of machines/programs. The real question becomes, is this world akin to a machine/program? I obviously think it is , do you?

[Chester]

Er that's a sloppy analogy, windows and 747's can be shown with cold hard facts to have been intelligently designed. Although I'd hesitate to call windows intelligently designed given 95,98, Me and Vista.

Who said the world is a machine and what was he on? Who said the world was a program and likewise what had he been on? It's not reasonable to believe the world is either a machine or that it is a program. To tell if it was a machine ie designed by some intelligence you'd have to show clearly there is no possible way such a collection of atoms could of formed without someone to direct it. To prove it was a program you'd have to be outside of it.

Like I've already said, we can not prove either way, you certainly can't prove that the world can be created mindlessly (atheist view), but we can go on evidence. Machines and programs are created with intent, and they are certainly an added (human) part of reality...why shouldn't we regard reality as something similar (machine/program)...we're back to the duck test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

[felix dakat]

Chester--

The first thing I notice is that you are selective. You only answer some of the questions I posed. Shall I assume that you do not have explanations for the questions you don't answer?

"Laws of nature" are the predictable facts of this world.

For there to be predictable facts of a world, there must be a world. You are postulating that facts about the world existed before the world did. How can that be? Existed where? I mean so far your explanation has been that God wrote the laws down. But you haven't explained where the paper and pen or pencil came from or where "he" got the materials. "Predictable facts about the world" might be a metaphoric way of saying "conditions that existed before the local universe began". That's easier for some people to believe than that there was a guy writing laws somewhere. But to you they are idiots.

God is the source of the intention required for the formation of this world. God must pre-exist that which He creates. A Being is not complex, maybe it is the fundamental foundation of existence?

Wait...you're asking a question. I thought you were claiming to know the answer and that people who disagree with you are idiots. Why would you ask an idiot a question? It seems you have unintentionally admitted that you don't know either.

The idea of God is representative of the fact that we know intention is critical to the formation of machines/programs. The real question becomes, is this world akin to a machine/program? I obviously think it is , do you?

Again you are begging the question. Complex patterns appear in nature without evidence of intention behind them. By your explanation, someone would have to 'intend' each snow flake and draft a schematic for each somewhere. Again you assume what you seek to prove.

I have no problem with someone believing whatever they choose about the origin of the universe. But to claim that you know the answer and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot is pure arrogant hubris, and I do have a problem with that. So far your arguments have been all hat and no cattle as they like to say in Texas.

[Calrid]

Er that's a sloppy analogy, windows and 747's can be shown with cold hard facts to have been intelligently designed. Although I'd hesitate to call windows intelligently designed given 95,98, Me and Vista.

Who said the world is a machine and what was he on? Who said the world was a program and likewise what had he been on? It's not reasonable to believe the world is either a machine or that it is a program. To tell if it was a machine ie designed by some intelligence you'd have to show clearly there is no possible way such a collection of atoms could of formed without someone to direct it. To prove it was a program you'd have to be outside of it.

Like I've already said, we can not prove either way, you certainly can't prove that the world can be created mindlessly (atheist view), but we can go on evidence. Machines and programs are created with intent, and they are certainly an added (human) part of reality...why shouldn't we regard reality as something similar (machine/program)...we're back to the duck test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

so what humans aren't machines - unless you want to define the term to include without design - if they were whoever invented them is a retard.

Why should we regard anything as anything when you compare them with things that are clearly intelligently designed, some guy designed the first computer, we know you can look it up, humans, have fun finding that wiki.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction."

[Moreno]

so what humans aren't machines - unless you want to define the term to include without design - if they were whoever invented them is a retard.

Why should we regard anything as anything when you compare them with things that are clearly intelligently designed, some guy designed the first computer, we know you can look it up, humans, have fun finding that wiki.

I don't see how determinism allows for invention, or even what that means. The first guy who invented a computer was no more designing anything than sperm are designing a path to the egg. His molecules were compelled along paths and this led to a product, just as his molecules were compelled along paths and created a poop of a certain shape. He may have had the quale of 'I created this intentionally', but that's just the intentionality or design quale. Stuff happened. Just as it always has.

Design is a meaningless word based on an illusion.

[Sha Tara]

I used stardust to illustrate the fact that common sense is an inadequate guide for explaining natural phenomena. I did not mean to imply that star dust is connected to the ultimate origin of everything what, it seems, you understood me to be arguing.

It doesn't look like you've shown that common sense is really inadequate guide for explaining "natural phenomena". Because first it would come down to what is the criterion for an explanation itself, which seems tough to answer. Second, it would look like start-dust doesn't really say much, but just going beyond what we could actually find it, which is like trying to come up with some "ultimate origin", while that is way more theoretical, in the sense that it goes beyond a simpler common sense answer.

---------------------------
What IS common sense? I think THAT needs defining! When I speak of "common sense" I mean it in a completely personal way, not necessarily applicable to anyone else. So, correct, on that basis, common sense certainly DOES NOT explain natural phenomena, but it does to me, not from any particular scientific discipline background (grade 12 saw me hit the streets to work!) or subsequent reading, although I've read hundreds of fascinating science fiction. My "common sense" comes mostly from observation, from "listening" beyond hearing. I listen to everything and I analyze what I hear. I listen to nature, the birds, the ever-changing winds, the waves, the thunder. I listen to the world of man (and cringe!) and I listen to "Teachers" (not of this world) and I listen to dreams.

I was taught this: "Nothing is impossible." A play on words? Perhaps. It is impossible for there to be nothing? But of course: how can there BE nothing, unless it is something? Or, everything is possible. Here's another: "As below so above." Man has turned that around so it makes no sense, but it remains, as here, so there. We can make things from what is, and so can a universe make things from what it comes from and it can grow. What is "God" but simply that which is forever out of the reach of our understanding? We create problems out of God because we insist on anthropomorphing (is there such a word?) or making God in our own image, rather than using God as a sling-shot effect to project ourselves ever farther into that Star-Trek unknown "where no man has gone before."

Here's a dream I had many years ago while resting from an exhausting paddle up the Fraser River. I was lying in tall, coarse grasses near the water, listening to the sussuration of the wind in the grass and the repetitive sploshing of wavelets on a carved muddy shore. The sky was darkening as a storm rolled in from the West but I wanted to be in it, so resisted the temptation to head back home. I fell asleep and dreamed. I lifted out of my body and rose above the earth, farther and farther, out of the solar system and out past the galaxy until I came to a white place with no distinguishable features. I entered this place and sitting on a white "bench" made of the same substance as everything else was an elder of gentle face. He had long white hair, a long beard, a robe with a hood thrown back. He sat unmoving as I watched him. So I decided to break the silence. I said, "So this is it? You are God and this is the end of the line for me? That's what it's been all about?" He turned to me very slowly and I saw the kindness and humor in his face. He laughed, pointed to the "north" and I saw a wall in the white substance, and in the wall the outline of a very large door. He pointed to the door and said, "I have yet to go through that one." I understood then, the concept of infinity! And I realized I was as much a part of that as that entity sitting there thinking about his next move. And the dream was over. I returned back the way I came, much faster this time, and I was ecstatic. It made sense - everything made sense. I rode the river in a wonderful storm.

I have another name for God: the Cosmos. However we developed or evolved, we are children of the cosmos and we are always at home. You can be a person of the most intent faith, for God as in religious, or against as in atheism, but that changes nothing. Those are the notes on the page, not
the symphony. To understand the symphony one has to listen to the music of the spheres and the voices of the dead for they are what we were.

[Polly]

I havent read any of this thread but this article could be relevant here: http://m.reason.com/26819/show/57003fbe ... ce000d37e/

edit: I'm not saying I agree with her idea.

[Chester]

Chester--

The first thing I notice is that you are selective. You only answer some of the questions I posed. Shall I assume that you do not have explanations for the questions you don't answer?

"Laws of nature" are the predictable facts of this world.

For there to be predictable facts of a world, there must be a world. You are postulating that facts about the world existed before the world did. How can that be? Existed where? I mean so far your explanation has been that God wrote the laws down. But you haven't explained where the paper and pen or pencil came from or where "he" got the materials. "Predictable facts about the world" might be a metaphoric way of saying "conditions that existed before the local universe began". That's easier for some people to believe than that there was a guy writing laws somewhere. But to you they are idiots.

God is the source of the intention required for the formation of this world. God must pre-exist that which He creates. A Being is not complex, maybe it is the fundamental foundation of existence?

Wait...you're asking a question. I thought you were claiming to know the answer and that people who disagree with you are idiots. Why would you ask an idiot a question? It seems you have unintentionally admitted that you don't know either.

The idea of God is representative of the fact that we know intention is critical to the formation of machines/programs. The real question becomes, is this world akin to a machine/program? I obviously think it is , do you?

Again you are begging the question. Complex patterns appear in nature without evidence of intention behind them. By your explanation, someone would have to 'intend' each snow flake and draft a schematic for each somewhere. Again you assume what you seek to prove.

I have no problem with someone believing whatever they choose about the origin of the universe. But to claim that you know the answer and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot is pure arrogant hubris, and I do have a problem with that. So far your arguments have been all hat and no cattle as they like to say in Texas.

I'm out of time tonight , but to give you an idea of where I'm coming from ...i think that we exist within a mind...that explains what was here before our time, it explains the everywhereness , powerfulness and all knowingness of God.

It is more logical to assume the requirement of intent for this world than to assume it formed by chance.

By the way, I have never claimed to know such facts, they just seem totally reasonable to me, and believe it or not I am a very logical person.

[Chester]

Er that's a sloppy analogy, windows and 747's can be shown with cold hard facts to have been intelligently designed. Although I'd hesitate to call windows intelligently designed given 95,98, Me and Vista.

Who said the world is a machine and what was he on? Who said the world was a program and likewise what had he been on? It's not reasonable to believe the world is either a machine or that it is a program. To tell if it was a machine ie designed by some intelligence you'd have to show clearly there is no possible way such a collection of atoms could of formed without someone to direct it. To prove it was a program you'd have to be outside of it.

Like I've already said, we can not prove either way, you certainly can't prove that the world can be created mindlessly (atheist view), but we can go on evidence. Machines and programs are created with intent, and they are certainly an added (human) part of reality...why shouldn't we regard reality as something similar (machine/program)...we're back to the duck test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

so what humans aren't machines - unless you want to define the term to include without design - if they were whoever invented them is a retard.

Why should we regard anything as anything when you compare them with things that are clearly intelligently designed, some guy designed the first computer, we know you can look it up, humans, have fun finding that wiki.

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction."

That's just silliness mate, we can't even design bacterium and you claim anyone who can design the world and humanity is a retard. That isn't logical mate.

Some things are clearly intelligently designed, machines and programs for example. Explain to me why this world can't be either of those.

Out of time tonight, see you all later (or not ).

[Calrid]

That's just silliness mate, we can't even design bacterium and you claim anyone who can design the world and humanity is a retard. That isn't logical mate.

Some things are clearly intelligently designed, machines and programs for example. Explain to me why this world can't be either of those.

Out of time tonight, see you all later (or not ).

Jesus you do like reaching for straw men. No one can make bacterium hence someone had to of made them, who was it The Wizard of Oz? I despair at your ability to take something perfectly ordinary and make the worst analogy possible ever.

We can design bacterium by the way, via genetic engineering of viruses we can get them to attack bacterium and replace their code. We can also just tinker with bacterium so they do something else, lose immunity to certain antibiotics. All sorts. We can build a better bacterium, we van even make them attack each other. I'm sure given enough time we could build one from the ground up but why bother when we can just mutate already existing species? Are we as stupid as the designer of humans? I think not.

Your knowledge of science is so 20th century.

cya later or not.

[Moreno]

That's just silliness mate, we can't even design bacterium and you claim anyone who can design the world and humanity is a retard. That isn't logical mate.

Some things are clearly intelligently designed, machines and programs for example. Explain to me why this world can't be either of those.

Out of time tonight, see you all later (or not ).

Jesus you do like reaching for straw men. No one can make bacterium hence someone had to of made them, who was it The Wizard of Oz?[

I am pretty sure he did not make this argument here.

[Calrid]

That's just silliness mate, we can't even design bacterium and you claim anyone who can design the world and humanity is a retard. That isn't logical mate.

Some things are clearly intelligently designed, machines and programs for example. Explain to me why this world can't be either of those.

Out of time tonight, see you all later (or not ).

Jesus you do like reaching for straw men. No one can make bacterium hence someone had to of made them, who was it The Wizard of Oz?[

I am pretty sure he did not make this argument here.

Design make, semantics it doesn't change the fact that he's talking crap. In fact it's easier to tackle that argument because we have mapped entire bacterial genomes, and so in theory could mess about coming up with new variations quite easily. I chose make because it's harder to engineer a bacteria than it is to talk about its design.

No one can design a bacteria because no one has designed one is still complete ass though, that much I am sure of.

[Chester]

That's just silliness mate, we can't even design bacterium and you claim anyone who can design the world and humanity is a retard. That isn't logical mate.

Some things are clearly intelligently designed, machines and programs for example. Explain to me why this world can't be either of those.

Out of time tonight, see you all later (or not ).

Jesus you do like reaching for straw men. No one can make bacterium hence someone had to of made them, who was it The Wizard of Oz?[

I am pretty sure he did not make this argument here.

You're right, I didn't make that argument.

[Calrid]

I am pretty sure he did not make this argument here.

You're right, I didn't make that argument.

And yet even when faced with both you can't tackle either...

[Moreno]

Design make, semantics it doesn't change the fact that he's talking crap.

The issue was not semantics. He is, there, arguing against you saying whoever designed is a retard.

so what humans aren't machines - unless you want to define the term to include without design - if they were whoever invented them is a retard.

His only point is that if even our smartest people cannot design bacteria, to call something that designed us - if that were the case - a retard, is silly. Since obviously it would take an intelligence beyond what we have now.

To me it seems you took this as an argument for Intelligent Design, when in fact it was a criticism of your conclusion that if there was someone who designed humans they must be a retard.