The known universe

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Since the days when they established most of the world's great universities.

Every time I hear somebody trot out this -- a splendid non-sequitur in the context you've used it, btw -- I'm reminded of that famous passage from Francis Bacon:

Francis Bacon wrote:

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For 13 days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition, such as was never before heard of in this region, was made manifest. At the beginning of the 14th day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of, and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceedingly wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding the truth contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man, declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

The universities of the world were of course set up by the churches to train people to defend religion, not to question it.

Not, altogether unlike one of the current functions of the vast majority of schools here in Ireland.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is that only applies to atheists saying that there is no evidence of gods design, but it doesn't apply to thiests saying there is? Why is that you, as a finite being, are so arrogant as to think you know enough of the universe to say that we are wrong when we say that there is no evidence of design? What do you as a finite being, know of the nature of god, to say that the vast, emptiness of universe is not an argument against its perfect existence?

You are confusing two very distinct and different concepts, but it's quite simple and straightforward if you stop to think about it.

There is a world of difference between claiming you can know something about X and saying that you can know everything about X.

In order to claim that something appears to have a purpose and indicates evidence of design, all we need to know is one possible purpose the designer might have.

The claim that something appears to have no purpose is a valid position. But all it indicates is that there is no evidence of design that we know of. For it to indicate that there is no designer, you would need to know every possible purpose the designer might have.

I don't think it is the slightest bit arrogant for me, as a finite creature, to say that you, also as a finite creature, are in no position to know every possible purpose that an infinite designer might have.

chozometroid

robindch wrote: »

Are the words in the puzzle designed by man?

Yes, basically. Could you be more specific as to what you think puts the letters in place?

Mark Hamill

chozometroid wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, but really, how do we decide what is evidence that something was not designed by an entity such as God?

"Oh, it's just the way it would be if there was no god." (this statement assumes that the speaker knows how it would be if there was a god)

And thats the point, even if you discount our ability to discern design in the universe, you are still left with a universe in which you cant say anything about gods existence.

chozometroid wrote: »

What are the criteria?
There is no parallel in the world of man. We design things, and there is evidence for that design. We also can tell when something was not designed by man. Problem is, what we design is made using existing materials, and it's always something related to a pre-existing design.
When discussing "intelligent design" for the universe, how do we decide what qualifies?

I'd imagine its pretty obvious. If we are talking about intelligent design, the thing to look for is anything that indicates intelligence, like efficiency and consistency. Now, while you could say that maybe we, as humans, aren't intelligent enough to recognise gods intelligence, but then you cant then claim that we are intelligent to claim that god exists in the first place.

chozometroid wrote: »

The theist will say that the patterns and structure of the universe and something such as DNA point to an intelligent design. The atheist says the design is inefficient or dumb suggesting they could've done better if they were God (this is not representative of all atheists, but it's a position I've seen enough times).

Actually thats a massive misrepresentation of what I've heard any atheist has said on this forum or the christian one. What I've heard atheists say is that what exists in nature appears as if its come around by natural unguided processes and an intelligent designer (not even intelligent as god, a sufficiently qualified biologist) would do better. Its not that atheists say the design is dumb, they dont recognise that there is a design because of the lack of anything that would generally point to design (efficiency, consistency etc.) over nonguided natural processes (vestigiality etc).

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not that atheists say the design is dumb,

I say it is.:)

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Every time I hear somebody trot out this -- a splendid non-sequitur in the context you've used it, btw -- I'm reminded of that famous passage from Francis Bacon:

Thank you for supporting my point so ably, Robin. Yes, the very mention of Francis Bacon serves as a wonderful riposte to anyone who asks "since when do the religious deal in logic?"

Bacon, of course, was extremely religious (of Puritan sympathies) and a key figure in the development of inductive logic and the scientific method.

We work so well together, don't you think? We could team up for wacker's debate!

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

Yes, basically. Could you be more specific as to what you think puts the letters in place?

The argument here is whether us humans are smart enough to spot "design" and to be able to infer the presence of "intelligence" if we do. Now, I'm not going to pin you down and ask you to define what you mean by either those terms, because it's not possible in any meaningful way. But, let's assume for the sake of argument, that we could.

If we are to accept that "intelligence" is manifested by the random arrangement of dice on the floor after we throw them at the wall, say -- don't you think that's a rather low bar to set?

And if randomness is characteristic of "intelligence", then how exactly are we to distinguish "intelligent randomness" from the unintelligent kind?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

There is a world of difference between claiming you can know something about X and saying that you can know everything about X.

When you claim that we cant know something about x because of how unintelligent we are compared to its omniscient all power, then not being able to know something about x translates into not being able to know anything about x, as how can you really tell that what you "know" about x is right, if you cant even comprehend what x is.

PDN wrote: »

In order to claim that something appears to have a purpose and indicates evidence of design, all we need to know is one possible purpose the designer might have.

If you want that claim to actually taking seriously, then it actually it goes a bit further than that. You need to show that there is little to no chance that that something couldn't have come about naturally and that it just happens to fit a purpose we, as finite humans, have invented for it, eg, just because you can use a rock you find on the ground as a hammer doesn't mean it was designed as a hammer.

PDN wrote: »

The claim that something appears to have no purpose is a valid position. But all it indicates is that there is no evidence of design that we know of. For it to indicate that there is no designer, you would need to know every possible purpose the designer might have.

For it to prove that there is no designer, you would need to know every possible purpose the designer might have. For it to indicate that there is no designer, all you need do is show something that has no purpose and question why a perfect designer would design something that at anytime would have no purpose, when all things and all purposes are designed by that designer.

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it is the slightest bit arrogant for me, as a finite creature, to say that you, also as a finite creature, are in no position to know every possible purpose that an infinite designer might have.

Thats not what I said, better luck next time, I said: Why is that you, as a finite being, are so arrogant as to think you know enough of the universe to say that we are wrong when we say that there is no evidence of design? You can say that we are limited in our intelligence in measuring design, but you cant claim to know that the statement that "there is no evidence of design" is wrong without believing that you know all there is to know about the universe and that the intelligence in the "design" is there, but we dont recognise it yet(if we ever will). Your intelligence is limited in the same way ours is.

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

I say it is.:)

You believe there is a designer, but it is unintelligent?

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You believe there is a designer, but it is unintelligent?

No, I am still slightly open to the possibility of a deistic designer that started things off but I think that the design it happened to come up with is incredibly stupid!

chozometroid

robindch wrote: »

The argument here is whether us humans are smart enough to spot "design" and to be able to infer the presence of "intelligence" if we do. Now, I'm not going to pin you down and ask you to define what you mean by either those terms, because it's not possible in any meaningful way. But, let's assume for the sake of argument, that we could.

If we are to accept that "intelligence" is manifested by the random arrangement of dice on the floor after we throw them at the wall, say -- don't you think that's a rather low bar to set?

And if randomness is characteristic of "intelligence", then how exactly are we to distinguish "intelligent randomness" from the unintelligent kind?

I get your point, but my point is that the dice themselves are evidence of intelligence.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

In order to claim that something appears to have a purpose and indicates evidence of design, all we need to know is one possible purpose the designer might have.

Well that's not really true. Being able to show that something can be used for a purpose does not show that it was designed for that purpose and that's especially true when you have no proof that the postulated designer exists. If he doesn't exist it's unlikely he designed anything

PDN wrote: »

The claim that something appears to have no purpose is a valid position. But all it indicates is that there is no evidence of design that we know of. For it to indicate that there is no designer, you would need to know every possible purpose the designer might have.

The point is that if you want to say something has a purpose you have to justify that claim, it's not good enough for you to simply state that you think it has some unknown purpose and place the burden of disproof on everyone else. That's just another "you can't prove god doesn't exist" type argument

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point is that if you want to say something has a purpose you have to justify that claim, it's not good enough for you to simply state that you think it has some unknown purpose and place the burden of disproof on everyone else. That's just another "you can't prove god doesn't exist" type argument

Of course, the idea of "purpose" and "God" are commonly tied together. Does anything really have any purpose in the naturalist view? Using this thread as an example; what about the universe or planet Earth? Without God, there is no purpose to these entities. Purpose ultimately requires intelligence.

If anything even does have a purpose, the question is: when and what type of life (ex: seeds) or entity (ex: clouds) first qualified for having a purpose?

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Purpose ultimately requires intelligence.

No it doesn't.
A object can exist for a purpose without someone/something intending it that way.
Simple analogy:
Homer Simpson builds a soapbox derby car for his son Bart. The "car" definitely has a purpose but I think you and I will agree that the product of intelligence it simply wasn't.

Osgoodisgood

PDN wrote: »

Because we are finite whereas God is infinite. It is not logical that a finite being could understand everything about the infinite.

You are applying attributes arbitrarily to support the god you want to be at the centre of things. There is no reason to believe that an invisible infinite deity is any more understanding or knowledgable than a finite mortal human. No reason other than the fervent wish that it were true of course.

No, I offered a coherent philosophical point. You are entitled to disagree with it,

Well, you offered a philosophical opinion.

but imputing false motives to me is little more than personal abuse.[/

Not at all. I did not abuse you personally. I maintain that arguments of christian apology are designed to be woolly and amorphous and that the purpose is to make the traditional point/counterpoint debate impossible. I fail to see how that opinion of mine, particularly when expressed on this particular forum could be interpreted as abusive.

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

Of course, the idea of "purpose" and "God" are commonly tied together. Does anything really have any purpose in the naturalist view? Using this thread as an example; what about the universe or planet Earth? Without God, there is no purpose to these entities. Purpose ultimately requires intelligence.

On a small aside, I've yet to hear what kind of a purpose a God offers us.

Humans in a godless universe: No purpose other than what individuals ascribe themselves.

Humans in a universe created by God: To please God? To believe in Him? To be an ant in his ant farm? To obey him (hardly a 'purpose')?

PDN

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

You are applying attributes arbitrarily to support the god you want to be at the centre of things. There is no reason to believe that an invisible infinite deity is any more understanding or knowledgable than a finite mortal human. No reason other than the fervent wish that it were true of course.

If you want to construct arguments against an invisible deity who is not actually omniscient then you are free to do so.

Of course your arguments will be of no interest or relevance whatsoever to Christians, since you are not discussing the Christian God.

Have fun with that one.

OK-Cancel-Apply

PDN wrote: »

Since the days when they established most of the world's great universities.

So, the real answer to my question "Since when do the religious deal in logic?" is quite simply, "Whenever it suits them". You may as well have listed off religious scientists, but I think we've all been down this path before. We know all about how people can cordon off sections of their minds for the supernatural..etc.

I wonder, could you tell us how you apply logic to Christianity and the Bible?

philologos

OK-Cancel-Apply: I thought this would be fairly obvious, thinking while reading.

chozometroid

Dades wrote: »

On a small aside, I've yet to hear what kind of a purpose a God offers us.

Humans in a godless universe: No purpose other than what individuals ascribe themselves.

Humans in a universe created by God: To please God? To believe in Him? To be an ant in his ant farm? To obey him (hardly a 'purpose')?

Certainly the only obvious answer is "to please God." I would add to that: develop into beings that can appreciate the life given to us, have a relationship with our Creator, and experience the wonders of God's greatness.
Perhaps God just wanted other beings to share in the experience of existence.
It truly is a mystery what this is really all about and what it's relevance is to anything that has been "done" outside of our time. Maybe God is a personal God, but that is actually the only part of Him we can be aware of. Maybe part of Him is impersonal and entirely unrelated to His creation.

PDN

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

So, the real answer to my question "Since when do the religious deal in logic?" is quite simply, "Whenever it suits them".

Ah, you meant to ask, 'When do the religious deal in logic?' Sorry.

Religious people deal in logic just as much as other people. All of us have a tendency now and again to discuss things on terms other than the logical. For example, rather than engaging in the subject under discussion in this thread, or addressing any points I have made, you have now decided to resort to generalisations about 'the religious' in general - the kind of generalisations that give atheism a bad name and undermine the efforts of intelligent atheists to engage in reasoned debate. That demonstrates that you only use logic when it suits you.

I wonder, could you tell us how you apply logic to Christianity and the Bible?

Last time, in this forum, that I applied logic to Christianity and the Bible, no-one actually addressed my logic, but instead they resorted to name calling and the thread had to be locked. So, rather than dragging this thread similarly off-topic, it might be better if we stuck to discussing the universe.

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

Certainly the only obvious answer is "to please God." I would add to that: develop into beings that can appreciate the life given to us, have a relationship with our Creator, and experience the wonders of God's greatness.

Pleasing a deity seems like a really poor excuse for a purpose.

Appreciating life and experiencing the wonders of God's greatness are not "purposes" and at any rate aren't even open to all of us. How many diseased, malnourished African kids get to fulfill that purpose?

Lastly God has made having a relationship with our Him somewhat difficult, by being invisible and his use of rather ethereal forms of communication.

I'm just not buying it!

OK-Cancel-Apply

PDN wrote: »

Ah, you meant to ask, 'When do the religious deal in logic?' Sorry.

Because the question of 'since when' and 'when' in this context are worlds apart, right?

PDN wrote: »

Religious people deal in logic just as much as other people.

I disagree.

PDN wrote: »

All of us have a tendency now and again to discuss things on terms other than the logical. For example, rather than engaging in the subject under discussion in this thread, or addressing any points I have made, you have now decided to resort to generalisations about 'the religious' in general

Yes we do, depending on the subject. But you started discussing the logic of a finite being understanding the infinite, with another poster. You steered a section of the conversation towards that subject. I haven't discussed anything you haven't brought up. I am trying to get to the bottom of how you, as a Christian who obviously believes in the Bible, decide when logic applies and when it does not.

- the kind of generalisations that give atheism a bad name and undermine the efforts of intelligent atheists to engage in reasoned debate. That demonstrates that you only use logic when it suits you.

I don't see how any of that is true.

Last time, in this forum, that I applied logic to Christianity and the Bible, no-one actually addressed my logic, but instead they resorted to name calling and the thread had to be locked. So, rather than dragging this thread similarly off-topic, it might be better if we stuck to discussing the universe.

So we can't talk about logic here lest the thread be locked. Or are you saying that you want to talk about the universe from a Deist point of view, regardless of whether or not it might undermine Biblical teaching? Help me understand...

PDN

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yes we do, depending on the subject. But you started discussing the logic of a finite being understanding the infinite, with another poster. You steered a section of the conversation towards that subject. I haven't discussed anything you haven't brought up. I am trying to get to the bottom of how you, as a Christian who obviously believes in the Bible, decide when logic applies and when it does not.

Like anyone else, I apply logic to my beliefs. I look at physical phenomena. I listen to what other people say. I use logical criteria to assess whether their testimony is credible or not. I read books. I use logical criteria to assess whether what those books claim is credible or not. I use logic just like most people.

Not sure why you want to go off on a tangent to discuss logic in general?

I don't see how any of that is true.

Of course you don't. You think it is reasonable to make absurd generalisations about the majority of the human race.

So we can't talk about logic here lest the thread be locked.

It's difficult to talk about logic here, due to the behaviour of a few posters who quickly abandon logic and vent their prejudices against anyone who they perceive as religious.

Or are you saying that you want to talk about the universe from a Deist point of view, regardless of whether or not it might undermine Biblical teaching?

Now you've lost me completely. I don't think anything I've said could even remotely give that impression.

OK-Cancel-Apply

PDN wrote: »

Like anyone else, I apply logic to my beliefs. I look at physical phenomena. I listen to what other people say. I use logical criteria to assess whether their testimony is credible or not. I read books. I use logical criteria to assess whether what those books claim is credible or not. I use logic just like most people.

You know something, you are correct. This thread is going to go way off topic if we continue down this path. But most of the topics raised in this forum are fundamentally about the same thing. All discussions inevitably go the same way once they pass through the funnel here.

Of course you don't. You think it is reasonable to make absurd generalisations about the majority of the human race.

Well this only comes back to what I was saying about being logical in some parts of one's mind and sectioning off others parts..etc etc.

Now you've lost me completely. I don't think anything I've said could even remotely give that impression.

You gave me the impression that you wanted to discuss the universe without mentioning Christianity or how it relates to the logic of the Bible. Was it unreasonable for me to ask if you were arguing from a Deist point of view? I thought I understood what Deism was. According to wikipedia:

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\)[1] or (\ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You know something, you are correct. This thread is going to go way off topic if we continue down this path. But most of the topics raised in this forum are fundamentally about the same thing. All discussions inevitably go the same way once they pass through the funnel here.

And there we agree, but I suspect we have very different ideas of what that funnel is.

You gave me the impression that you wanted to discuss the universe without mentioning Christianity or how it relates to the logic of the Bible.

I did?

Twin-go

Great Vid OP, Thanks.

If God did indeed create all this and we indeed are the only planet where he created life...........

What a waste of Space!

OK-Cancel-Apply

PDN wrote: »

And there we agree, but I suspect we have very different ideas of what that funnel is.

Perhaps, but I'm glad you agree with the beginning and middle part of what I said.

I did?

Yes.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When you claim that we cant know something about x because of how unintelligent we are compared to its omniscient all power, then not being able to know something about x translates into not being able to know anything about x, as how can you really tell that what you "know" about x is right, if you cant even comprehend what x is.

That is a stunning, although utterly unconvincing, leap of logic.

It is not necessary to understand everything about x, to know something about x.

A finite being is certainly able to understand something about God, particularly if God chooses to make Himself known to that finite being. However, it is impossible for the finite being to understand God totally.

If you want that claim to actually taking seriously, then it actually it goes a bit further than that. You need to show that there is little to no chance that that something couldn't have come about naturally and that it just happens to fit a purpose we, as finite humans, have invented for it, eg, just because you can use a rock you find on the ground as a hammer doesn't mean it was designed as a hammer.

And there I agree with you totally. I never said anything to the contrary. That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

Thats not what I said, better luck next time,

I would be careful, if I were you. In this forum, I have discovered, if you clarify your meaning by pointing out that someone has misinterpreted your words you run the risk of being accused of engaging in semantics.

I said: Why is that you, as a finite being, are so arrogant as to think you know enough of the universe to say that we are wrong when we say that there is no evidence of design?

But that's not what I said. Better luck next time

I know enough about you (ie that you are a finite human, just like me) to know that you have insufficient knowledge to assess whether there is a design or not.

You can say that we are limited in our intelligence in measuring design, but you cant claim to know that the statement that "there is no evidence of design" is wrong without believing that you know all there is to know about the universe and that the intelligence in the "design" is there, but we dont recognise it yet(if we ever will). Your intelligence is limited in the same way ours is.

I never made such a claim. My position is that the amount of stuff in the universe for which we see no purpose neither supports or refutes the concept of a designer. That's been my point all the way through this thread, and I'm not quite sure why people want to argue with it.

You can make the statement that "there is no evidence of design" about some of the stuff in the universe if you want. But it is illogical to move from that to the statement that "there is no design".