This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is 'too complex' a viable argument?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why do you need to have a creator to have a first cause?
Why can't that first cause have just happened if you allow a creator to just have existed?
Quantum mechanics don't necessarily obey the laws as we know them, so whose to say that casualty acts as we understand it when certain extremes are encountered?
I'm not totally sure what you're getting at with that second question. That's exactly what ID proposes, with the added modifier that said cause is intelligent.
Intelligent design states that the universe was created by a creator, and said creator just exists.
Secular science would state that the universe just exists.
Occam's Razor states that the simpler of two exlpanations that covers all the facts is probably correct, and thus, it would seem that the universe just exists.
That's begging the question. I could predicate that of anything...I just exist. Life just exists. Paper just exists. That doesn't make it true. Positing that something does not have a cause does not make it simpler.
You don't. Which is why it's unfalsifiable and irrelevant to science. Hey there very well may be an intelligent designer because of its nature, we can't prove or disprove it and that is why science doesn't concern itself with such things. Remember you are the one who said it can be prove supernatural explanations.
You're setting up a double standard. Which is exactly the problem dealt with in the sources I linked.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You don't. Which is why it's unfalsifiable and irrelevant to science. Hey there very well may be an intelligent designer because of its nature, we can't prove or disprove it and that is why science doesn't concern itself with such things. Remember you are the one who said it can be prove supernatural explanations.
You're setting up a double standard. Which is exactly the problem dealt with in the sources I linked.
You can test materialistic explanations you can't test supernatural explanations. Explain how it's a double standard.
Prove to me light is both a particle and a wave. We can only know light by its effects (light as such cannot be seen), yet science claims to be able to reasonable demonstrate certain things about it. Likewise, we cannot know the first cause except through it's effects.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
That's begging the question. I could predicate that of anything...I just exist. Life just exists. Paper just exists. That doesn't make it true. Positing that something does not have a cause does not make it simpler.Well, you have to stop somewhere. Why does the universe need a creator? Is he simpler than the universe he created? If not, then why does he need no creator?
Explain to me that.
Post by
Orranis
That's begging the question. I could predicate that of anything...I just exist. Life just exists. Paper just exists. That doesn't make it true. Positing that something does not have a cause does not make it simpler.Well, you have to stop somewhere. Why does the universe need a creator? Is he simpler than the universe he created? If not, then why does he need no creator?
Explain to me that.
Well, even if the universe does have a sentient creator, something I consider a possibility, why does he give a crap about you?
While I believe in the possibility of everything, I believe that there is a chance far less than one percent that God is someone who cares if you go into a closet and tell a priest you cheated on your wife.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well, you have to stop somewhere. Why does the universe need a creator? Is he simpler than the universe he created? If not, then why does he need no creator?
Explain to me that.
Because it's a more fitting explanation for some things. He's perfectly simple. By definition a first cause can have no cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Light can be seen. All vision is light. Light can also be detected, measured, and recorded as in this experiment.
Exactly, you only see the effects of light.
You've got a habit of proving my own points.
Post by
Orranis
Well, you have to stop somewhere. Why does the universe need a creator? Is he simpler than the universe he created? If not, then why does he need no creator?
Explain to me that.
Because it's a more fitting explanation for some things. He's perfectly simple. By definition a first cause can have no cause.
Great compelling argument. I understand you are by far my superior at philosophical and theological debate, but by "god," tell me what these things are if you want us to accept your argument. A first cause needs no cause, but that has nothing to do with what the first cause is.
God is undefinable, at the same time as being more simple then a definable universe he created?
Post by
Skreeran
If god needs no creator, then I fail to see why the universe needs one.
The christian explanation is that god has always and forever existed. Why can't the universe be seen the same way? We know that the Big Bang was the start of our current universe, but who's to say what was before that?
Intelligent Design is pseudo science. It's not actually science at all, it merely pretends to be. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Intelligent Design works to shut down that pursuit. Instead of asking "how did this happen?" it merely says "this is how it happened, and no, I can't explain it."
Evolution is the best theory for where human beings came from. The Big Bang is the best theory for where the universe came from. If you want to replace them, do better science, don't just say that your theory is better despite having no evidence.
And you don't have any evidence. You cannot prove god. You cannot prove an intelligent designer. Intelligent Design states, in a nutshell "I do not understand how this came to be, so it must be fairies."
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Exactly, you only see the effects of light.
Proofs only exist in closed systems. If you're asking for a proof in the way of logic or mathematics, that's not what science is about. We conduct experiments to elucidate the nature of nature... our current understanding of light as both a particle and a wave is the one that best fits our observations. We are not trying to "prove" that it is so... science is not egoistic.. it's a continually changing pool of evidence and explanations that is subject to change once someone can demonstrate that we were wrong.
The whole point here is you can't even measure, test, record, see supernatural explanations. We are not asking you for experimental proof of supernatural explanations... we are asking you for some way we can control or measure and observe its effects so we can test it. That's it.
Since you can't. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Basically, this. It's physically impossible to fully prove anything, so we go with the best explanation. Intelligent Design has not met that criteria.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Exactly, you only see the effects of light.
Proofs only exist in closed systems. If you're asking for a proof in the way of logic or mathematics, that's not what science is about. We conduct experiments to elucidate the nature of nature... our current understanding of light as both a particle and a wave is the one that best fits our observations. We are not trying to "prove" that it is so... science is not egoistic.. it's a continually changing pool of evidence and explanations that is subject to change once someone can demonstrate that we were wrong.
The whole point here is you can't even measure, test, record, see supernatural explanations. We are not asking you for experimental proof of supernatural explanations... we are asking you for some way we can control or measure and observe its effects so we can test it. That's it.
Since you can't. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Yes you can test it. You come up with a contrary hypothesis for some unintelligent cause, then see if that fits the data better.
God is undefinable
by us
, at the same time as being more simple then a definable universe he created?
We're creatures, we can't comprehend the infinitude of God, no matter how simple.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
What makes a supernatural cause any different than any other unverified materialistic cause? Why do we assume that the cause is supernatural and not some other untested materialistic cause?Precisely.
"I can't explain this, so it must be god/magic/fairies/a flying spaghetti monster."
Post by
Orranis
Exactly, you only see the effects of light.
Proofs only exist in closed systems. If you're asking for a proof in the way of logic or mathematics, that's not what science is about. We conduct experiments to elucidate the nature of nature... our current understanding of light as both a particle and a wave is the one that best fits our observations. We are not trying to "prove" that it is so... science is not egoistic.. it's a continually changing pool of evidence and explanations that is subject to change once someone can demonstrate that we were wrong.
The whole point here is you can't even measure, test, record, see supernatural explanations. We are not asking you for experimental proof of supernatural explanations... we are asking you for some way we can control or measure and observe its effects so we can test it. That's it.
Since you can't. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Yes you can test it. You come up with a contrary hypothesis for some unintelligent cause, then see if that fits the data better.
Even if this was so, you've made no compelling arguments that it does.
God is undefinable
by us
, at the same time as being more simple then a definable universe he created?
We're creatures, we can't comprehend the infinitude of God, no matter how simple.
But we can define the universe?
Post by
kattib
I know I am going to regret getting back in here but...
HSR your argument is a False Dilemma Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
It is a False Dilemma because you say since there are some kinks in current scientific thinking it is all wrong and since it is wrong ID is correct. This is simply untrue, there could be another possible theory that works that hasn't been thought of which works extremely well.
The foundation of science is the scientific method and that method states that a theory is proposed and then it must be tested (and retested and retested) in order to try to disprove the hypothesis and then communication of your results whether they support or disprove your theory. Whichever one it was it will be retested in order to confirm or disprove these results. This will be done again and again until a theory can become a law, it remains inconclusive or is disproven.
ID is not in any of these categories since it is untestable in any way, disproving one thing does NOT prove another.
PS: I fear for the incoming retribution by supporters of ID
Post by
MyTie
PS: I fear for the incoming retribution by supporters of ID
I support ID. I don't disagree with your post. I think it was a bit presumptuous to assume that ID believers would have 'retribution' for you.
Post by
kattib
Alright MyTie you were right :P
I was more anxious to what HSR would say but didnt want to single him out
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.