Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 22:16:55 GMT
I used to do the chop up the thread game, but I found that one conversation lead to 5 or 6 going different directions, and the core thought was lost in the process. I can run from one to the other quite well and cover several different pieces with one whole, but if it needs to turn into one of those split it up instead of just reply to all the parts I can do that too if it really is needed. I'm more concerned when the chopping is combined with cropping, as information gets lost in the process. It's not like we are talking about some huge thesis here. I'm not saying a God was required to form what we see, I don't know, but so see something that indicates design to me, and science cannot explain it yet. I'm willing to accept a scientific explanation for all I ponder when it becomes available. Absent Life, where replicating molecules that can continue to replicate and survive and become more and more complex and grow from a primordial stew and grow via survival of the fittest to quite wondrous complexity, I see no driving force to make the fabric of the universe not be very disorderly vs the order and utility I'm seeing. Like I said before I see something akin to complex tinkertoys and when I see something akin to complex tinkertoys I tend to believe someone wanted to build something. I very well understand the debunking of the Watchmaker Analogy where life is concerned. I see a similar situation with the building blocks of the universe to the Watchmaker analogy, and I see no mechanism similar to Darwin's theory presented for stardust to counter it. So I merely point that out. I'm not sure how many ways I can say that I'm not saying it proves design, but to me, indicates the possibility, and I won't discount it, especially when science isn't even scratching the surface in this area. IMHO chopping up a thread into single logical units is helpful due to the fact ( as I previously stated) that otherwise one tends to following on from the previous thought, with the same possible misconception Wow, that is a big call. Are you seriously saying that science doesn't understand the basic elements that YOU see as design? Without being too rude, you are starting to sound like idiots such as Heeeeey who doesn't actually understand even the basics of scientific knowledge OR who wilfully discounts it as it does not fit her personal agenda. The way I look at it is the converse to your view. IMHO There IS enough knowledge and scientific evidence to understand the design and zero evidence of a 'designer'. You aren't looking in the same area of the nature of matter that I'm talking about. I well understand that an atom of Hydrogen had a Proton and and Electron, that the electons tend to like to form a pair in their subshell so hydrogen tends to be a 2 atom molecule, and that when fusion occurs in a star that helium is formed, it is an inert gas. Then under further fusion 3 proton Lithium forms and so on and so on, By the time multiple stardust cycles there are very heavy elements. These elements work together form compounds and there are all kinds of wonderful and useful things that spring from these elements and compounds. I'm more concerned about the rulebook that says this had to be. Why is this so? Why are there electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, all working together to form order at all? Why isn't this universe just a pile of poo? If it's the laws of physics, why are the laws the way they are? It takes a the concept of shifting a void into positive and negative parts to even account for this concept, and scientists aren't finding all the parts they expected in accounting for the big bang as we speak to even have matter at all let alone account for it's behavior.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 22:36:21 GMT
IMHO chopping up a thread into single logical units is helpful due to the fact ( as I previously stated) that otherwise one tends to following on from the previous thought, with the same possible misconception Wow, that is a big call. Are you seriously saying that science doesn't understand the basic elements that YOU see as design? Without being too rude, you are starting to sound like idiots such as Heeeeey who doesn't actually understand even the basics of scientific knowledge OR who wilfully discounts it as it does not fit her personal agenda. The way I look at it is the converse to your view. IMHO There IS enough knowledge and scientific evidence to understand the design and zero evidence of a 'designer'. You aren't looking in the same area of the nature of matter that I'm talking about. I well understand that an atom of Hydrogen had a Proton and and Electron, that the electons tend to like to form a pair in their subshell so hydrogen tends to be a 2 atom molecule, and that when fusion occurs in a star that helium is formed, it is an inert gas. Then under further fusion 3 proton Lithium forms and so on and so on, By the time multiple stardust cycles there are very heavy elements. These elements work together form compounds and there are all kinds of wonderful and useful things that spring from these elements and compounds. I'm more concerned about the rulebook that says this had to be. Why is this so? Why are there electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, all working together to form order at all? Why isn't this universe just a pile of poo? If it's the laws of physics, why are the laws the way they are? It takes a the concept of shifting a void into positive and negative parts to even account for this concept, and scientists aren't finding all the parts they expected in accounting for the big bang as we speak to even have matter at all let alone account for it's behavior. ...on the contrary. I am looking at ALL that there is. I repeat, there is no evidence of anything else existing, and why should there be? To make people who don't understand it feel better?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 22:55:29 GMT
You aren't looking in the same area of the nature of matter that I'm talking about. I well understand that an atom of Hydrogen had a Proton and and Electron, that the electons tend to like to form a pair in their subshell so hydrogen tends to be a 2 atom molecule, and that when fusion occurs in a star that helium is formed, it is an inert gas. Then under further fusion 3 proton Lithium forms and so on and so on, By the time multiple stardust cycles there are very heavy elements. These elements work together form compounds and there are all kinds of wonderful and useful things that spring from these elements and compounds. I'm more concerned about the rulebook that says this had to be. Why is this so? Why are there electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, all working together to form order at all? Why isn't this universe just a pile of poo? If it's the laws of physics, why are the laws the way they are? It takes a the concept of shifting a void into positive and negative parts to even account for this concept, and scientists aren't finding all the parts they expected in accounting for the big bang as we speak to even have matter at all let alone account for it's behavior. ...on the contrary. I am looking at ALL that there is. I repeat, there is no evidence of anything else existing, and why should there be? To make people who don't understand it feel better? You are absolutely right, there is no evidence of anything else existing. I'm talking about how all this stuff we have got here in the first place and what determined the orderly properties this stuff has. I'm talking about what has kept this discussion going for thousands of years amongst some pretty intelligent people and they aren't done discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 23:32:48 GMT
...on the contrary. I am looking at ALL that there is. I repeat, there is no evidence of anything else existing, and why should there be? To make people who don't understand it feel better? You are absolutely right, there is no evidence of anything else existing. I'm talking about how all this stuff we have got here in the first place and what determined the orderly properties this stuff has. I'm talking about what has kept this discussion going for thousands of years amongst some pretty intelligent people and they aren't done discussing it. Then why suggest that there is by implicating 'a designer'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 23:49:04 GMT
You are absolutely right, there is no evidence of anything else existing. I'm talking about how all this stuff we have got here in the first place and what determined the orderly properties this stuff has. I'm talking about what has kept this discussion going for thousands of years amongst some pretty intelligent people and they aren't done discussing it. Then why suggest that there is by implicating 'a designer'? Because I observe that there is the appearance of design in the nature of matter and I question why that is. Unlike life, there's no survival of the fittest to account for that quality, an appearance of design, in matter. I'm open to the possibility of there being a designer here, I'm open to the possibility of it not being a designer. If you are closed to the possibility of a designer, then be closed to the possibility. It's OK with me.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 18, 2019 23:55:45 GMT
Then why suggest that there is by implicating 'a designer'? Because I observe that there is the appearance of design in the nature of matter and I question why that is. Unlike life, there's no survival of the fittest to account for that quality, an appearance of design, in matter. I'm open to the possibility of there being a designer here, I'm open to the possibility of it not being a designer. If you are closed to the possibility of a designer, then be closed to the possibility. It's OK with me. There are natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena. No designer necessary. Good...because in my view a 'designer' is surplus to requirements, unnecessary and not evident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 0:10:50 GMT
Because I observe that there is the appearance of design in the nature of matter and I question why that is. Unlike life, there's no survival of the fittest to account for that quality, an appearance of design, in matter. I'm open to the possibility of there being a designer here, I'm open to the possibility of it not being a designer. If you are closed to the possibility of a designer, then be closed to the possibility. It's OK with me. There natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena. No designer necessary. Good...because in my view a 'designer' is surplus to requirements, unnecessary and not evident. Awesome!! All these others couldn't come up with why the natural laws exists as they do vs something else! If you can tell me why the universe chose things to be the way they are with the complicated tinkertoy nature of the elements vs. something not so varied as to allow for little specks of the Universe such as ourselves to ponder existence, have at it in this thread. It will be monumental!! I don't even think Steven Hawking got close to this spot, but if you got them, lay them out!!! Please do!!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 0:14:29 GMT
There natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena. No designer necessary. Good...because in my view a 'designer' is surplus to requirements, unnecessary and not evident. Awesome!! All these others couldn't come up with why the natural laws exists as they do vs something else! If you can tell me why the universe chose things to be the way they are with the complicated tinkertoy nature of the elements vs. something not so varied as to allow for little specks of the Universe such as ourselves to ponder existence, have at it in this thread. It will be monumental!! I don't even think Steven Hawking got close to this spot, but if you got them, lay them out!!! Please do!! WTF are you talking about? The natural laws are the fundamentals of everything. Nothing else is necessary and they are self evident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 0:19:00 GMT
Awesome!! All these others couldn't come up with why the natural laws exists as they do vs something else! If you can tell me why the universe chose things to be the way they are with the complicated tinkertoy nature of the elements vs. something not so varied as to allow for little specks of the Universe such as ourselves to ponder existence, have at it in this thread. It will be monumental!! I don't even think Steven Hawking got close to this spot, but if you got them, lay them out!!! Please do!! WTF are you talking about? The natural laws are the fundamentals of everything. Nothing else is necessary and they are self evident. Teach me Goz! Why is an atom an atom vs. something else, and why does it behave like it does? We'll start there, and go up! I won't worry about the subatomic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 0:22:50 GMT
WTF are you talking about? The natural laws are the fundamentals of everything. Nothing else is necessary and they are self evident. Teach me Goz! Why is an atom an atom vs. something else, and why does it behave like it does? We'll start there, and go up! I won't worry about the subatomic stuff. There is nothing to teach. Why is gravity? Why does the sun? rise etc etc etc. It does because of the natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are. An atom IS an atom and NOT something else. This is not rocket surgery!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 0:30:47 GMT
Teach me Goz! Why is an atom an atom vs. something else, and why does it behave like it does? We'll start there, and go up! I won't worry about the subatomic stuff. There is nothing to teach. Why is gravity? Why does the sun? rise etc etc etc. It does because of the natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are. An atom IS an atom and NOT something else. This is not rocket surgery! "The natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are?" I'm honestly asking you why are they what they are and not something else! This is the question I'm asking, Why do the laws prescribe complex tinkertoy like elements vs all the other things that could have been that didn't have the appearance of tinkertoy like elements? This is the kind question that has dumbfounded philosophers and scientists since the dawn of philosophy. I'm even dropping all talk of God right now in our conversation and leaving it to the natural world. I'm right here with the basic questions of existence that man can't answer. You're stating you got it, and I'm saying great! Come out with it, I'm listening! You will change the world as we know it if you answer with what you claim to know!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 0:40:34 GMT
There is nothing to teach. Why is gravity? Why does the sun? rise etc etc etc. It does because of the natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are. An atom IS an atom and NOT something else. This is not rocket surgery! "The natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are?" I'm honestly asking you why are they what they are and not something else! This is the question I'm asking, Why do the laws prescribe complex tinkertoy like elements vs all the other things that could have been that didn't have the appearance of tinkertoy like elements? This is the kind question that has dumbfounded philosophers and scientists since the dawn of philosophy. I'm even dropping all talk of God right now in our conversation and leaving it to the natural world. I'm right here with the basic questions of existence that man can't answer. You're stating you got it, and I'm saying great! Come out with it, I'm listening! You will change the world as we know it if you answer with what you claim to know! Stop being a supercilious dickhead! For me it comes down to this. I accept the natural world, and that it is what it is without the need for an external 'designer' which to my mind is not only superfluous, butt unnecessary. Feel free to disagree. I also accept that the 'why' is unknowable which is why I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't think about it a lot until someone suggest a 'designer' for which there is do possible evidence, owing to my view on the natural world just existing. It is the simplest and most likely explanation in my view.
|
|
basmaticathury
Junior Member
@basmaticathury
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 1,186
|
Post by basmaticathury on Oct 19, 2019 0:45:13 GMT
Sometimes I think God is a delusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 0:57:23 GMT
"The natural universal laws of physics, which are what they are?" I'm honestly asking you why are they what they are and not something else! This is the question I'm asking, Why do the laws prescribe complex tinkertoy like elements vs all the other things that could have been that didn't have the appearance of tinkertoy like elements? This is the kind question that has dumbfounded philosophers and scientists since the dawn of philosophy. I'm even dropping all talk of God right now in our conversation and leaving it to the natural world. I'm right here with the basic questions of existence that man can't answer. You're stating you got it, and I'm saying great! Come out with it, I'm listening! You will change the world as we know it if you answer with what you claim to know!Stop being a supercilious dickhead! For me it comes down to this. I accept the natural world, and that it is what it is without the need for an external 'designer' which to my mind is not only superfluous, butt unnecessary. Feel free to disagree. I also accept that the 'why' is unknowable which is why I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't think about it a lot until someone suggest a 'designer' for which there is do possible evidence, owing to my view on the natural world just existing. It is the simplest and most likely explanation in my view. I'm not being any kind of supercilious dickhead at all, I'm challenging you on what you purport to know, the "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." Man's still at the stage of discovering and cataloging all the "laws". We haven't even begun to figure out why. I really like George Lucas, he's a thinker. He said this, and I think it captures much of how I've come to think:
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 1:23:39 GMT
Stop being a supercilious dickhead! For me it comes down to this. I accept the natural world, and that it is what it is without the need for an external 'designer' which to my mind is not only superfluous, butt unnecessary. Feel free to disagree. I also accept that the 'why' is unknowable which is why I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't think about it a lot until someone suggest a 'designer' for which there is do possible evidence, owing to my view on the natural world just existing. It is the simplest and most likely explanation in my view. I'm not being any kind of supercilious dickhead at all, I'm challenging you on what you purport to know, the "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." Man's still at the stage of discovering and cataloging all the "laws". We haven't even begun to figure out why. I really like George Lucas, he's a thinker. He said this, and I think it captures much of how I've come to think: You were... What you are missing here, that it is not important for us to know the why. Billions before us and after us will live and die without knowing the why, just as "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." will go on working as they have with or without our understanding of them. We will gradually understand a few more as time goes by butt never the 'why' as it is unknowable and consequently unimportant. The problem for humans as I see it, is succumbing to the fallacious and harmful versions of the human need to try and isolate the 'why' and identify what the why is...ie religion. Religion as man pursues it is little more than an inept microcosm of 'human nature' which is largely primitive and tribalistic in its manifestations, ironically. Your quotation is just a common or garden version of a 'God of the Gaps'....no big deal. You are welcome to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 1:27:17 GMT
I'm not being any kind of supercilious dickhead at all, I'm challenging you on what you purport to know, the "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." Man's still at the stage of discovering and cataloging all the "laws". We haven't even begun to figure out why. I really like George Lucas, he's a thinker. He said this, and I think it captures much of how I've come to think: You were... What you are missing here, that it is not important for us to know the why. Billions before us and after us will live and die without knowing the why, just as "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." will go on working as they have with or without our understanding of them. We will gradually understand a few more as time goes by butt never the 'why' as it is unknowable and consequently unimportant. The problem for humans as I see it, is succumbing to the fallacious and harmful versions of the human need to try and isolate the 'why' and identify what the why is...ie religion. Religion as man pursues it is little more than an inept microcosm of 'human nature' which is largely primitive and tribalistic in its manifestations, ironically. Your quotation is just a common or garden version of a 'God of the Gaps'....no big deal. You are welcome to it. Wow, this is a huge difference from you from three hours ago:
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 1:37:29 GMT
You were... What you are missing here, that it is not important for us to know the why. Billions before us and after us will live and die without knowing the why, just as "natural universal laws of physics which account for these phenomena." will go on working as they have with or without our understanding of them. We will gradually understand a few more as time goes by butt never the 'why' as it is unknowable and consequently unimportant. The problem for humans as I see it, is succumbing to the fallacious and harmful versions of the human need to try and isolate the 'why' and identify what the why is...ie religion. Religion as man pursues it is little more than an inept microcosm of 'human nature' which is largely primitive and tribalistic in its manifestations, ironically. Your quotation is just a common or garden version of a 'God of the Gaps'....no big deal. You are welcome to it. Wow, this is a huge difference from you from three hours ago: No, it is not. There is still and never will be any evidence of a designer and we have comparatively a quite lot of scientific knowledge and evidence. We just don't know the why, which is unknowable. The evidence is all around us to be observed and discovered, in the natural world, and there is a rudimentary knowledge of the core design elements. You said yourself about atoms, sub atomic particles, the DNA molecule, astronomy, physics biology etc etc etc. of course we are still learning as I said and we both agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 1:50:29 GMT
Wow, this is a huge difference from you from three hours ago: No, it is not. There is still and never will be any evidence of a designer and we have comparatively a quite lot of scientific knowledge and evidence. We just don't know the why, which is unknowable. The evidence is all around us to be observed and discovered, in the natural world, and there is a rudimentary knowledge of the core design elements. You said yourself about atoms, sub atomic particles, the DNA molecule, astronomy, physics biology etc etc etc. of course we are still learning as I said and we both agree. I'm pretty sure a forum entitled "Religion, Faith, and Spirituality" is where we would be delving into the "why" of things. I'm going to make observations in this forum and delve into the "why". If someone comes at the observation from the science side, I'm going to be asking a lot of "why's". I'm going to take someone coming at the observation with a lot of questions to see really what we know about the subject at hand. If you wish to call me a dickhead or whatever because I'm calling you to task, go ahead, I'm still not going to change the questions I'm going to ask back.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 19, 2019 2:07:06 GMT
No, it is not. There is still and never will be any evidence of a designer and we have comparatively a quite lot of scientific knowledge and evidence. We just don't know the why, which is unknowable. The evidence is all around us to be observed and discovered, in the natural world, and there is a rudimentary knowledge of the core design elements. You said yourself about atoms, sub atomic particles, the DNA molecule, astronomy, physics biology etc etc etc. of course we are still learning as I said and we both agree. I'm pretty sure a forum entitled "Religion, Faith, and Spirituality" is where we would be delving into the "why" of things. I'm going to make observations in this forum and delve into the "why". If someone comes at the observation from the science side, I'm going to be asking a lot of "why's". I'm going to take someone coming at the observation with a lot of questions to see really what we know about the subject at hand. If you wish to call me a dickhead or whatever because I'm calling you to task, go ahead, I'm still not going to change the questions I'm going to ask back. OK, let me ask you a question. Why do you believe in a designer/god without knowing why? I see the natural world in all its glory of design and everything else and say 'Wow! Didn't natural forces do a great job, irrespective of why ( though I suspect the answer to that why question is 'because it always has) and you think it must be a designer. Why is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 3:04:01 GMT
I'm pretty sure a forum entitled "Religion, Faith, and Spirituality" is where we would be delving into the "why" of things. I'm going to make observations in this forum and delve into the "why". If someone comes at the observation from the science side, I'm going to be asking a lot of "why's". I'm going to take someone coming at the observation with a lot of questions to see really what we know about the subject at hand. If you wish to call me a dickhead or whatever because I'm calling you to task, go ahead, I'm still not going to change the questions I'm going to ask back. OK, let me ask you a question. Why do you believe in a designer/god without knowing why? I see the natural world in all its glory of design and everything else and say 'Wow! Didn't natural forces do a great job, irrespective of why ( though I suspect the answer to that why question is 'because it always has) and you think it must be a designer. Why is that? I think I said several times in this thread I see design, and I could be proven wrong. Where in this whole thing did I say "must"? There's no "must" to this subject as far my observation about the nature of matter. I've said before I don't base my faith on this observation, I'm just making the observation and asking if we don't know "why", then "why not design"? because I see design here, and it could also be "why not science"?, but I see nothing in science attending this area yet. So we really don't know, but I'm going to make the observation and share it. If making the observation leads to offense, I apologize, I'm still going to make the observation. As to why do you believe in a designer/god without knowing why... This is going to get completely away from any observation about the nature of matter, because honestly, like I said, it's not where I base my faith. And this conversation is going to take a turn, and I feel lead to share, so I will. I believe because when I humble myself to not push my own will, but try to seek God's will through meditation and prayer, I am a much more fulfilled person than when I try live it out on my own. Life's not perfect. Often times it really stinks, but I know what makes me content and challenges me to help others when the "me" of the conversation would rather help myself. I'm not expecting anyone who hasn't experienced it to understand, and that's OK. It's not scientific for those who base everything on what they can sense and measure, I'm not pretending to tell them the way I base my faith is something they have to try if they don't want to. I just recommend to anyone who senses a God shaped hole in their being to see if God fits. I've been told before this is a delusion, and to that I say if it takes a life of delusion for me to feel the way I do when I'm placing my faith in God, to put others ahead of myself more, to visit others and to pray with them and see their lives change when they accept God's lead as well, then so be it. Others may find this type of life without that faith, and I say wonderful for them, but for me, that blind faith works just fine. Challenge it all you wish, It's been challenged before. You ask me why, I've just told you why, and it's why I'm going to continue to live like this until I'm gone. Tell me it's a delusion, humbug, bullshit, my genes, I'm going to say "that's nice". I know opening up like this can subject myself to ridicule, it's ok, It's all part of it, I'm not bothered by that ridicule. But if someone feels that as they continue on living via their own will, and it's not working out well, and they are open to God's will, I'm willing to talk to them about how I've learned to let go. That's my why.
|
|