Before the bang

[PETA]

Originally Posted by MattM

Ah. And even a roll of the dice or a flip of the coin has something of an order to it via probability etc. Flip a coin 10,000 times and the results will be somewhere around 50/50.

Sure, but as you well know the substance of the comment was intended to be a metaphor for randomness not an explanation of it.

[MattM]

Yes, the whole chaos thing though just boggles me slightly as I've never seen chaos. I'm beginning to think chaos is something of an illusion and there is really order in it - maybe just order we are unable yet to comprehend. Even wisps of smoke off cigarretes (seemingly random) etc can be mathematically modeled.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by MattM

Yes, the whole chaos thing though just boggles me slightly as I've never seen chaos. I'm beginning to think chaos is something of an illusion and there is really order in it - maybe just order we are unable yet to comprehend. Even wisps of smoke off cigarretes (seemingly random) etc can be mathematically modeled.

could be - amazing stuff to contemplate

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by xian

Sure, and how do you communicate that to the rest of us back here on the material place


The way I read the notion originally was something like this... approximate quote.... ID can never be proven, until it is, and at that point it should seem a hollow triumph.

Who said anything about material planes? Maybe the creator is hanging out in Idaho or something? Seriously though, creator does not ncessesarily equal Christian God. There are a million other possibilites in which ID would be quite easy to prove, yeah?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Seriously though, creator does not ncessesarily equal Christian God.

Never argued that it did. See earlier post (I think this thread). The nature of God is almost surely unknowable and we're left with trying to come to an underdstanding through small glimpses into the divine. What that means is any claim to exclusive ownership of an explanation as to the divine and what the divine desires is laughable. But, that's no denial of the existence of God - just a recognition that God is God and is beyond our capacity to fully comprehend... no news flash there.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

There are a million other possibilites in which ID would be quite easy to prove, yeah?

Give me one then, yeah?


Proof of the divine in a quantifiable and verifiable sense would seem an impossibility - if not then we'd be dealing with an entirely new set of rules - such that this debate would be rendered pointless don't you think? I mean think about it. If God had an office accessible by metaphysical elevator atteneded by cherubim and assisted by angels (substitute your preferred amusing analogy) then we don't need to discuss the existence of God anymore - right?

[Xodiac]

If God had an office accessible by metaphysical elevator atteneded by cherubim and assisted by angels (substitute your preferred amusing analogy) then we don't need to discuss the existence of God anymore - right?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying...maybe he does, and we just haven't found it yet. In the hypothetical situation that we did, ID would be proven correct, wouldn't it?

[I AM EL-NINO]

Its all about faith. No more no less. I know you science types like to disect this subject but it really all boils down to faith. And to me its air apparent that this being exists in a manor we cant fully understand or...... the subject wouldnt be the numero uno topic on the planet.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Yeah, that's what I'm saying...maybe he does, and we just haven't found it yet. In the hypothetical situation that we did, ID would be proven correct, wouldn't it?

sure it would but at that point the response to the conclusion that ID is true would be "so what."

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Okay, that's all well and good, but nobody is aguing that the universe sprang up from randomness, there is a scientific process behind the order of the universe, chaos is only part of it. We've already been though everything you've just said, and you'd be hard pressed to find somebody that disagrees with your point that the universe has order to it, that part is beyond obvious. The part where we disagree is the part where proponents of ID claim that order can only come from consiousness. Try and defend THAT, and then we'll have something to talk about.

2nd law of thermo supports this. Considering the universe a closed system it states that order would have to come from intent witch would imply there being a conscious effort. Also the pattern of life itself is a fact to support this claim. Such as your parents making the conscious effort to have sex, and their parents, ect ect. A garden can only be created with the conscious effort to implement intent within that closed system to apply order to plant life. Art is another pattern to support it - the conscious effort to create structure or order and the culture that continues the pattern.

Also if not some sort of conscious (assuming you mean conscious in form of something with the intent on creating something) then what? What else did everything originate from? What’s a more plausible theory and what facts to support that theory to make it more plausible?

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

ID can never be proven? WTF? Where do you get that from? Of course ID could be proven. It will be proven the second we empirically find the designer, right?

I don't think that physical empirical evidence would be possible. Then again quantum physic theories have plausibility but most of them will never be proven either same thing with the theories this thread was started on. If you read the article the last page other scientists were not so into it because they said it could never be tested. The only thing that can be tested is belief and faith.

People that think that God has been proven to them are basing that on their own personal experience. As valid as that is to an individual it doesn’t serve as evidence to the scientific community.

There are some things such as supernatural phenomenon’s that do not exist on the same plane of existence as physical science such as things like miracles and magik. An occultist or shaman fully believe in physical science and could manipulate plants and alchemy to create a chemical compound used to take their mind into a non-linear state. From that point they could manipulate the laws of nature and perform things outside of the empirical scope of considerable evidence to the common skeptic. So they believe in the same science the skeptic believes but they also believe and utilize other forms of science the skeptic doesn’t. Also how does one explain miracles? How does one explain magik or prayer? These things have been proven to work and if they didn’t then people wouldn’t continue to perform and believe as they have for 1000s of years. Things like this HAVE in fact happened but scientists can’t explain it. Could it be because events like this happen outside of a scope to be explained on that level? That leaves the question of what is empirical? Is it possible that there are other forms of science that exist on a non linear plane of existence therefore the same methods to prove its existence can’t be the same.

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by xian

sure it would but at that point the response to the conclusion that ID is true would be "so what."

So what is the most interesting question of all. It would be a question of "okay, now that we know exactly where we come from, what does that say about who we are, and what does that mean about where we're going? And I think understanding our origins would have a profound impact on those other questions.

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by JoshM

2nd law of thermo supports this. Considering the universe a closed system it states that order would have to come from intent witch would imply there being a conscious effort. Also the pattern of life itself is a fact to support this claim. Such as your parents making the conscious effort to have sex, and their parents, ect ect. A garden can only be created with the conscious effort to implement intent within that closed system to apply order to plant life. Art is another pattern to support it - the conscious effort to create structure or order and the culture that continues the pattern.

Also if not some sort of conscious (assuming you mean conscious in form of something with the intent on creating something) then what? What else did everything originate from? What’s a more plausible theory and what facts to support that theory to make it more plausible?

Define "it" in the second sentence. What is "it" that states that order comes from intent? The 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because...no, it doesn't have anything to do with intent. It just says that, basically the universe gets more disorderly as time goes by. Look it up.

The rest of the first paragraph deals with ground we've already covered. Yes, I know that human beings consciously create order through passing on genetics, art, etc. The question is how can you then make the jump to saying that all order in nature is created through intent? I keep asking this question, and the only answer I've gotten in this thread is "well humans make order." which is circular reasoning and invalid.

As for the last paragraph of yours, it is often better to admit we simply don't know something, than to accept a theory just because there isn't a better one out there yet. Example: We don't know exactly what causes the "pop" when we pop our knuckles. We think it has to do with gas bubbles escaping our joints, but we're withholding judgement until we know for sure. Admitting ignorance is an act of humility and prudence.

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by JoshM

I don't think that physical empirical evidence would be possible. Then again quantum physic theories have plausibility but most of them will never be proven either same thing with the theories this thread was started on. If you read the article the last page other scientists were not so into it because they said it could never be tested. The only thing that can be tested is belief and faith.

People that think that God has been proven to them are basing that on their own personal experience. As valid as that is to an individual it doesn’t serve as evidence to the scientific community.

There are some things such as supernatural phenomenon’s that do not exist on the same plane of existence as physical science such as things like miracles and magik. An occultist or shaman fully believe in physical science and could manipulate plants and alchemy to create a chemical compound used to take their mind into a non-linear state. From that point they could manipulate the laws of nature and perform things outside of the empirical scope of considerable evidence to the common skeptic. So they believe in the same science the skeptic believes but they also believe and utilize other forms of science the skeptic doesn’t. Also how does one explain miracles? How does one explain magik or prayer? These things have been proven to work and if they didn’t then people wouldn’t continue to perform and believe as they have for 1000s of years. Things like this HAVE in fact happened but scientists can’t explain it. Could it be because events like this happen outside of a scope to be explained on that level? That leaves the question of what is empirical? Is it possible that there are other forms of science that exist on a non linear plane of existence therefore the same methods to prove its existence can’t be the same.

I really like your idea about a new science that deals with phenomena on another plane of existence. It would require both a compeltely new understanding of the universe and set of rules with allow it to meld with philosophy. This is going to get far out, so bear with me. The problem with science is that it actually takes several leaps of faith. It assumes, without any logical reason, that the universe CAN be explained and understood, that the underlying rules do not completely change from one moment to the next, assumes that existence will continue when for all we know, we could all blink out of being at any moment, it assumes that our senses are generally correct in percieving phenomena and not hallucinating or an illusion. It also has trouble with things that are very obviously real, but are also immeasurable. For example, the words on this screen, according to science are computer data transformed into projections of light emenating from a montior into the eye of the beholder and then converted to electical signals inside the brain. But none of that gets us any closer to explain how those signals can be words that have meaning. Science is made of ideas and information, but does not have the means to describe with either of those actually are. Science cannot explain how a character in a book can exist and yet not be real. How do we integrate science, philosophy, and the underlying components, mathematics and logic, to create a unified theory of an information universe? Such a thing would make a quantum theory of gravity, the yet-unattainable theory that integrates quantum phisicis and general relativity, pale in comparison.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

So what is the most interesting question of all.

Wow - dunno. That's prolly a debate to itself.

"Why is there air?"

"How do I get this rope around that trunk latch so my Xmas tree doesn't fall out of my car?"

"What the fuck is my two year old trying to tell me when she says "Sea Bass" - that one I know actually.... Sea Bass = Zebras = Madagascar = I want to watch Madagascar = "Daddy say ' I like to ...' " move it move it.

Why does my father in law use the word "take" as a filler word - as in "you can take and put this 2x4 on the back in take and put this 1x2 in front and take and bolt them together."

Originally Posted by Xodiac

It would be a question of "okay, now that we know exactly where we come from, what does that say about who we are, and what does that mean about where we're going? And I think understanding our origins would have a profound impact on those other questions.

If we have proof of God I think all debates cease. Especially since you've got his office address (and I presume phone number. Hs support staff will settle any ongoing disputes of any nature... egg/chicken? white before Memorial day? To be or not to be? Chicago with the points or without?

Life is full of free will and choice and the opportunity to fuck up endlessly..... and the occasional "getting it right." That's much more fun than knowing the score before the Cardinals get their asses kicked. even though we can rely on the ass kicking.

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

I really like your idea about a new science that deals with phenomena on another plane of existence. It would require both a compeltely new understanding of the universe and set of rules with allow it to meld with philosophy. This is going to get far out, so bear with me. The problem with science is that it actually takes several leaps of faith. It assumes, without any logical reason, that the universe CAN be explained and understood, that the underlying rules do not completely change from one moment to the next, assumes that existence will continue when for all we know, we could all blink out of being at any moment, it assumes that our senses are generally correct in percieving phenomena and not hallucinating or an illusion. It also has trouble with things that are very obviously real, but are also immeasurable. For example, the words on this screen, according to science are computer data transformed into projections of light emenating from a montior into the eye of the beholder and then converted to electical signals inside the brain. But none of that gets us any closer to explain how those signals can be words that have meaning. Science is made of ideas and information, but does not have the means to describe with either of those actually are. Science cannot explain how a character in a book can exist and yet not be real. How do we integrate science, philosophy, and the underlying components, mathematics and logic, to create a unified theory of an information universe? Such a thing would make a quantum theory of gravity, the yet-unattainable theory that integrates quantum phisicis and general relativity, pale in comparison.

Ok now we're getting somewhere You are correct. Science can only explain things within its own limitations. So what if the explination is beyond those limitations? A completely new scientific method? If the method of perception is different then perhaps the method of explaining should be.

And yes i like how you mentioned things not being explained. Sure thats always a possible and very plasuable conclusion but its like saying "I dont know" witch is fine. You're right that a humble man can admit to what he doesn't know but should that give you a reason to give up in your search? HELL NO! Life is too short. Why not and keep searching. Its not so much the destination but the journey

So then its not the explination as much as it is the experience? What defines you more and gives you more wisdom? Science is a philosophy, theology and experience for patternized understanding.