(February 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: He could have created any way He wanted to, but He chose to create woman from man. Why isn't He allowed to have any creative freedom?

A better creativity would be to create humans with no deformity at birth.

b/l Wrote:Why isn't He allowed to have any creative freedom?

Because you won't let HIM..you desperately want this "Almighty Cod" to be perfect.

(February 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm)Forsaken Wrote: A better creativity would be to create humans with no deformity at birth.

Or without the optic chiasm, too many teeth for our mouth, useless muscles (for ear wiggling), aorta and inferior vena cava cross on the left leg not to mention the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Shall I go on? If our current christoholic bl's god is the designer, he is an incompetent piece of shit that should be fired immediately.

(February 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm)Phil Wrote: Or without the optic chiasm, too many teeth for our mouth, useless muscles (for ear wiggling), aorta and inferior vena cava cross on the left leg not to mention the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Shall I go on? If our current christoholic bl's god is the designer, he is an incompetent piece of shit that should be fired immediately.

This one explains everything perfectly.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfh9cr...o1_500.gif

(February 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Surely you don't think you are the first to present the teleological argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Quote:Many philosophers and theologians have expounded and criticized different versions of the teleological argument. Commonly, they argue that any implied designer need not have the qualities commonly attributed to the God of classical theism. Scientists have shown alternative explanations for biological complexity, notably natural selection, with no requirement for supernatural design.

From the 1990s, creation science was rebranded as intelligent design, presenting the teleological argument while avoiding naming the designer with the aim of presenting this as science and getting it taught in public school science classes. In 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design is a religious argument and is not science, and was being used to give pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a god-like designer.

I would suppose not, but I was wondering what you thought about it. Specifically, the information in DNA. Does it not intrigue that we find a digital code with an alphabet, grammer, syntax, and semantics, as well as error correction and storage, far more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, engineering all life as we know it?

---

(February 6, 2012 at 11:09 pm)whateverist Wrote: You may be more comfortable than I am in accepting arguments from authority. But not every cosmologist agrees that we inhabit a universe as opposed to a multiverse, this layman included. Think about it. How conclusive could any evidence be as to the origins of the uni- or multi- verse we inhabit. The vastness of space and time make certainty suspect. Remember, science isn't about verifying facts. Its about disproving assumptions. Even if a finite universe is currently most popular, only a theist would use that to argue the fact of the matter. The best theory is always provisional. I'm willing to leave it as an unsettled question. Your disposition toward certainty may make that less comfortable for you.

Well, a multiverse only makes everything more complicated, and violates occams razor, which says we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. The mechanism that generated the multiple universes would also need a level of fine tuning which would make its existence virtually impossible.

It doesn't appear that you have let the question remain unsettled; you are quite content to rule out an intelligent cause and assume that it must have some kind of naturalistic explanation. Again, it's anything but God, but I haven't seen you make any arguments that would rule God out.

(February 6, 2012 at 11:09 pm)whateverist Wrote: Well does that surprise you? Whether the whatever-verse and what gave rise to it and what gave rise to that and so on is infinitely old as I maintain or merely billions of years old, we both agree agree that the inorganic can be at least eons old. Now show me any creature/being of any kind that science has discovered which is any where near so old. I know about what is claimed about your favorite genie but that and other magical creatures are not widely accepted. So really old stuff is uncontroversially accepted but really old beings are not. I guess that is pretty much my problem with it.

With a sufficient amount of time we may be able to alter our DNA to make us immortal, and enhance ourselves with technology to give us near-unlimited knowledge and power. If this is possible, why not an eternal being?

---

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Since more that 99% if the universe does not permit life as we know it, the tuning is not fine at all. Further, you have any evidence that some other form of life would not be possible with different tuning?

The tuning is finer than is easily comprehensible, but maybe you're capable of imagining numbers larger than the number of particles in the Universe. When I say a life-permitting Universe, that means it can support some kind of life vs no life. The percentage of the Universe that can support life is irrelevent to the question. Instead of copying and pasting, I'll direct you to this website which shows the fine tuning parameters and the impossibility of life if they were slightly altered:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Lots of errors in the argument.
1. While the author realizes that "before" and "prior" are spatio-temporal concepts, he fails to realize that so is "beginning". The universe cannot have a beginning for the same reason it has no "prior".

Wrong. Causation too is a spatio-temporal contextual attribute. It is not applicable prior to the big-bang and therefore the universe cannot have a cause.

Wrong. "Beginning" is a spatio-temporal contextual event. Therefore, space and time cannot have a beginning and therefore neither can the universe.

2. Common mistake while presenting Kalam's argument: proof of applicability of causality in absence of spatio-temporal context.

It can if we formulate the argument like this:

begins to exist = comes into being

x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists

God creating x as the timeless, efficient cause of x

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: 3. Special pleading w.r.t. god. If actual infinite cannot exist, neither can god

When God is referred to as an infinite being, this is a qualitative conception, not a quantitative one. It is referring to His superlative attributes, like omnipotence, moral perfection, etc..

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: 4. Complete misunderstanding of Aristotle's argument against actual infinite. According to Aristotle, actual infinite means that it is a known set with infinite items. That is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist. If the set is unknown, it is potential infinite and that can exist. Further, Aristotle held that time was infinite.

For the past to be potentially infinite, it would be finite at any point but growing towards infinity the other direction, which contradicts temporal becoming. Also, if the number of events from the past to the present is finite, then that means the past had a beginning.

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Only if you are on earth.

Since this was the center of activity, I think it is the relevent perspective.

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: You cannot be more wrong. The flood was actually in Satyuga, which was much more than 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago, the Kaliyuga began which led to the corruption and misinterpretation of truth. The ancient flood legend was imprinted into the collective consiousness, but other religions got its timing wrong. Every religion is a post-flood religion, obviously, but according to the True Religion of Hinduism, others are false.

Odd then that we only have around 4500 years of written history, which is around the time scripture says the flood came.

---

(February 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm)Forsaken Wrote: A better creativity would be to create humans with no deformity at birth.

That's the way creation was before sin and death entered into the world. It is because we live in a fallen world that these things happen today.

---

(February 7, 2012 at 8:46 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

b/l Wrote:Why isn't He allowed to have any creative freedom?

Because you won't let HIM..you desperately want this "Almighty Cod" to be perfect.

It's been my experience that He is perfect and always far exceeds even my grandest expectations. It's that which I try to communicate.

---

(February 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm)Phil Wrote: Or without the optic chiasm, too many teeth for our mouth, useless muscles (for ear wiggling), aorta and inferior vena cava cross on the left leg not to mention the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Shall I go on? If our current christoholic bl's god is the designer, he is an incompetent piece of shit that should be fired immediately.

http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-lar...-evidence/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...na-design/
http://creation.com/oh-my-aching-wisdom-teeth

You should also note that we live in a fallen creation which means we are in a degenerative state

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: The tuning is finer than is easily comprehensible, but maybe you're capable of imagining numbers larger than the number of particles in the Universe. When I say a life-permitting Universe, that means it can support some kind of life vs no life. The percentage of the Universe that can support life is irrelevent to the question. Instead of copying and pasting, I'll direct you to this website which shows the fine tuning parameters and the impossibility of life if they were slightly altered:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Like I said before, this only shows that by changing the parameters, life AS WE KNOW IT, would not be possible. You have any evidence showing that no other form of life would not be possible either.

While we are on the subject, you have any evidence showing that those parameters are "tunable", i.e. it is possible for them to be something other than what they are?

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: It can if we formulate the argument like this:

begins to exist = comes into being

x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists

God creating x as the timeless, efficient cause of x

And the implicit premise in the formulation is that "there can be a t* prior to t". If there cannot be, then the formulations fails completely, causality stands inapplicable, the universe always exists and god doesn't.

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: When God is referred to as an infinite being, this is a qualitative conception, not a quantitative one. It is referring to His superlative attributes, like omnipotence, moral perfection, etc..

So he's not eternal then? Being eternal means living for infinite time. If that attribute is simply superlative rather than qualitative, then god doesn't actually live for eternity, just a very long time.

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: For the past to be potentially infinite, it would be finite at any point but growing towards infinity the other direction, which contradicts temporal becoming.

Why would it need to be finite at any point to be potentially infinite?

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Also, if the number of events from the past to the present is finite, then that means the past had a beginning.

Ergo, number of events from the past are infinite as well.

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Since this was the center of activity, I think it is the relevent perspective.

As usual, tiny humans arrogant in their own self-importance.

(February 7, 2012 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote: Odd then that we only have around 4500 years of written history, which is around the time scripture says the flood came.

Why is it odd? The material things were written on are not eternal. They get old and crumble to dust like everything else. What matters is that the content was copied and stored into new mediums periodically.

Here Bl. Refute away but before you start let me tell you that you (or any apologist) don't have a snowballs chance in hell.

edit: on second thought, you use AIG and you seem to think that is a good scientific source so don't bother replying.

There is no such information in DNA, that's how we interpret what DNA is because the concept of alphabets etc are a convenient way of organizing a system which we would like to analyze. This is a case of a common use for a word not being an adequete description of it's use in a specific discipline of science..and tons of fallacious arguments are built atop the common use of the word "information". The "information in dna"...what information, specifically? Are you referring to "creation information"? If so, I can clear that up for you real quick. That's apologetics, not science. Obviously DNA is intriguing, but what does that have to do with god? Absolutely nothing.

A multiverse would require a level of fine tuning? Why, we don't see any levels of fine tuning in the this singular universe (the only one we have evidence for thusfar), so why assume that there would be any in some as yet unidentified multiverse? Garbage. No one has to rule god out BL, you have to bring something to the table to rule god in, which you haven't (don't take that personally, no one in the entire history of mankind has ever done this).

Alter DNA to make ourselves immortal? You mean....perpetual motion...free energy....in short..magic? I don't think it's anywhere near as likely as you seem to believe. We don't "just die"..we die for a reason (more accurately, reasons)...lol. Even if such a thing were possible, we're still referencing a creature which can be shown to exist aren't we (human beings), and that's the difference. What may be possible and what is are entirely different things. It may be possible for pigs to fly, but strangely, they don't.

The level of tuning is not fine because there is no fine tuning in the first place. Just stop. If you wan't to continue arguing this, how about you don't copy paste or link, but make this case in your own words? Would that be possible. Like the pigs above, it may be, but you haven't done so yet.

Attributes for which you have no evidence, I remain unconvinced.

What does time have to do with god, honestly? Is it a habit of people who want to propose god to do so and then argue about anything other god? It's starting to grate on me.

The center of activity? Hello anthropic bias, just wanted to say hi and mention that we've created an entire religion out of you.

Are you seriously proposing here...that there was nothing before we invented the written word? That's going to last forever in my mind, the day that someone claimed that nothing existed before the letter A.......

Evidence for "perfect" human beings? Evidence for the fall? Nope..and nope, just more bullshit.

Your experience. As in, your experience with god? Evidence? We live in no such creation, we are in no such state, nutball.

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: It doesn't appear that you have let the question remain unsettled; you are quite content to rule out an intelligent cause and assume that it must have some kind of naturalistic explanation. Again, it's anything but God, but I haven't seen you make any arguments that would rule God out.

Oh no the question of origins is quite unsettled in my mind. But of course I am expecting a natural accounting, just as I do for anything else science is working on. Since we have no reliable account of eternal omnipotent genies who can blink universes into existence, they can't be part of such an accounting until their own existence has been established.

(February 8, 2012 at 5:37 am)brotherlylove Wrote: With a sufficient amount of time we may be able to alter our DNA to make us immortal, and enhance ourselves with technology to give us near-unlimited knowledge and power. If this is possible, why not an eternal being?

Now you're just not trying. You're suggesting that at some prior time a technological society may have perfected technology to the point where they could put death off for ever. That would hardly make them eternal, would it? Will they have also have mastered time travel so that they can go back 15 billion years and somehow set off the singularity that we think accounts for our universe? Neither do I see much hope that technology will ever catch up with the powers claimed for your genie. Silly suggestion.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: Like I said before, this only shows that by changing the parameters, life AS WE KNOW IT, would not be possible. You have any evidence showing that no other form of life would not be possible either.

A change in many of those values would make life completely impossible, such as chemicals not being able to bond, no stars, no galaxies, no enough matter, etc. Whether there is some form of life that could potentially exist under some of these values is irrelevent, since we are talking about the sum of all of them..even if it were only a few of them, or even one of them, such as cosmological constant, you are still dealing with numbers bigger than the number of particles in the Universe. Neither do you have any evidence for any other sort of life; you just assume it is possible.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: While we are on the subject, you have any evidence showing that those parameters are "tunable", i.e. it is possible for them to be something other than what they are?

I don't think it's possible for them to be any other value than what they are, because they were created to be as they are. I don't have enough to faith to believe in self-creating Universes. I am simply arguing against the paradign that you believe in, which is that nothing created everything. In the scientific paradigm, it is certainly possible that the Universe could have been much different, which is why they have theories of multiple Universes.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: And the implicit premise in the formulation is that "there can be a t* prior to t". If there cannot be, then the formulations fails completely, causality stands inapplicable, the universe always exists and god doesn't.

There is nothing to rule out a timeless efficient cause. If isn't an argument.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: So he's not eternal then? Being eternal means living for infinite time. If that attribute is simply superlative rather than qualitative, then god doesn't actually live for eternity, just a very long time.

Something eternal exists outside time.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: Why would it need to be finite at any point to be potentially infinite?

Because it isn't actually infinite? Why do you think a potential infinite means? An actual infinite is completed, a potential infinite is series that is only potentially endless

For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different.

—Aristotle, Physics, book 3, chapter 6.

You can always add one more, but in the adding it is a finite number of things you are dealing wtih.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: Ergo, number of events from the past are infinite as well.

No, they're not..see above.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: As usual, tiny humans arrogant in their own self-importance.

It's not arrogant to believe that the terms "morning and evening" in correlation to "the first day" refer to 24 hour days. You would have to work at misinterpreting it.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:27 am)genkaus Wrote: Why is it odd? The material things were written on are not eternal. They get old and crumble to dust like everything else. What matters is that the content was copied and stored into new mediums periodically.

Are they more fragile than soft tissue? How is it that blood cells can survive intact for "70 million years" but stone tablets couldn't last a few thousand years? Could it be that the sacred cow of deep time is flawed?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...issue.html

---

(February 8, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: There is no such information in DNA, that's how we interpret what DNA is because the concept of alphabets etc are a convenient way of organizing a system which we would like to analyze. This is a case of a common use for a word not being an adequete description of it's use in a specific discipline of science..and tons of fallacious arguments are built atop the common use of the word "information". The "information in dna"...what information, specifically? Are you referring to "creation information"? If so, I can clear that up for you real quick. That's apologetics, not science. Obviously DNA is intriguing, but what does that have to do with god? Absolutely nothing.

If it isn't actually information I wonder why scientists call it information:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...al-6493050

http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/RESEARCH/0019

Or why forensic DNA is an information science..

It's not convenient to say that DNA has an alphabet, grammar, semantics, etc..it is a digital code far superior to the best codes we have developed. It is not just a pattern like a snowflake.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: A multiverse would require a level of fine tuning? Why, we don't see any levels of fine tuning in the this singular universe (the only one we have evidence for thusfar), so why assume that there would be any in some as yet unidentified multiverse? Garbage. No one has to rule god out BL, you have to bring something to the table to rule god in, which you haven't (don't take that personally, no one in the entire history of mankind has ever done this).

The idea of fine tuning did not originate with the intelligent design community. It is not even controversial to suggest that the Universe is fine tuned for life. It is only controversial to suggest that there was a fine tuner. Physicists Paul Davies said:

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"

(February 8, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: Alter DNA to make ourselves immortal? You mean....perpetual motion...free energy....in short..magic? I don't think it's anywhere near as likely as you seem to believe. We don't "just die"..we die for a reason (more accurately, reasons)...lol. Even if such a thing were possible, we're still referencing a creature which can be shown to exist aren't we (human beings), and that's the difference. What may be possible and what is are entirely different things. It may be possible for pigs to fly, but strangely, they don't.

There has been research to suggest that the reason we die is because it is in our programming, and this "feature" could be turned off. They speak of developing artificial intelligences that could assume the entire body of human knowledge instantaneously and copy it among themselves. There doesn't seem to be any reason we couldn't live forever, and it is in fact one of the major goals of science to come up with a solution for immortality. If we can become immortal, there is no reason an eternal being couldn't exist.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: Are you seriously proposing here...that there was nothing before we invented the written word? That's going to last forever in my mind, the day that someone claimed that nothing existed before the letter A.......

No, I suggested that the reason the writings end at a certain point is because of the flood. There was a pre-flood civilization before the flood which was very advanced, certainly far more than the civilizations of antiquity.

(February 8, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your experience. As in, your experience with god? Evidence? We live in no such creation, we are in no such state, nutball.

I'm still waiting on your evidence that there isn't a God, as you asserted in our earlier conversation.

---

(February 8, 2012 at 11:21 am)whateverist Wrote: Oh no the question of origins is quite unsettled in my mind. But of course I am expecting a natural accounting, just as I do for anything else science is working on. Since we have no reliable account of eternal omnipotent genies who can blink universes into existence, they can't be part of such an accounting until their own existence has been established.

It's settled to the point that you have ruled out any causes that don't have a naturalistic explanation. You assume everything will be explained in naturalistic terms when there is no reason at all to assume that. You are probably willing to believe anything that scientists tell you, to the point of believing nothing created everything, as some have suggested. It's hard to understand how anyone can hear that and realize the emperor has no clothes.

As I have pointed out earlier, there are plenty of good reasons to think the Universe does have an intelligent cause, but you don't want to engage with any of it. If it's unsettled, you would be more open minded. There is also general and special revelation. The heavens pour forth speech that there is a God; His eternal powerful and Godhead are evident in the things He has made, the the bible gives a specific account of His creation, through His Son Jesus Christ.

(February 8, 2012 at 11:21 am)whateverist Wrote: Now you're just not trying. You're suggesting that at some prior time a technological society may have perfected technology to the point where they could put death off for ever. That would hardly make them eternal, would it? Will they have also have mastered time travel so that they can go back 15 billion years and somehow set off the singularity that we think accounts for our universe? Neither do I see much hope that technology will ever catch up with the powers claimed for your genie. Silly suggestion.

I am not suggesting any of that. You said you couldn't believe in eternal beings, explaining that what we know of beings is that they don't live forever. I showed that it is possible that we could obtain immortality, and thus, according to your line of reasoning, eternal beings are possible.