Intelligent Design

[kmortis]

That statement is unfalsifable. No one can get outside the known universe to observe whether or not cosmic rays, the Earth or even peanut-butter banana sandwitches exist out there.

Actually, these things have always existed, regardless of whether a Universe preceeds their (physical) actuality or not. This is what makes it irreducibly complex.

Do you actually read what you write?

Since he's asserting that pe'nu-nanner sammiches have always existed, I'm guessing that the answer is "no".

 

[Tricky]

Push vs pull, up vs down, in vs out, light vs dark, positive vs negative, acid vs alkaline, solid vs liquid, energy vs matter, what's your point? ... If, you even have one?

Oh, I see. You're simply redefining things again. You're speaking about determinism as something with a rheostat, like "my decision was 75% determinism and 25% free will."

I suppose that you are unaware or simply choose to ignore that determinism is a philosophy which states that everything has been determined in advance. An example would be postulating a creator making the universe and letting it cook for a few billion years in order that one flyspeck of a world could have intelligent life for (so far) a span of only a few thousand years.

No, the Iacchian universe as you describe it does not allow for any free will. That would require a degree of randomness, which you deny exists.

 

[kmortis]

Push vs pull, up vs down, in vs out, light vs dark, beginning vs end, positive vs negative, acid vs alkaline, solid vs liquid, energy vs matter, what's your point? ... If, you even have one?

Iaachus,
There's a big difference between "polar opposites" and "going hand-in-hand".

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, can you explain how free will and determinism "go hand in hand"?

Sort of like the relationship between energy and matter. Where energy is free flowing and indeterminate, matter is the consolidation of that energy and in effect, where it terminates.

 

[Iacchus]

Since he's asserting that pe'nu-nanner sammiches have always existed, I'm guessing that the answer is "no".

And would you agree that time could not exist without the "principle" of time to set it in motion? Indeed, how could anything exist, if it did not first exist in principle?

 

[kmortis]

And would you agree that time could not exist without the "principle" of time to set it in motion? Indeed, how could anything exist, if it did not first exist in principle?

Are we going back to some sort of Platonic ideal pe'nu-nanner sammich? The All Peanut-butterness of Peanut-butter?

Or, for a less smart-a$$ed responce. No, in fact I would not agree, at least not without a much better proof than just "Iacchus said so".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sort of like the relationship between energy and matter. Where energy is free flowing and indeterminate, matter is the consolidation of that energy and in effect, where it terminates.

Could you restate this sentence, substituting "free will" and "determinism" where appropriate, so we can see if you are saying anything coherent?

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Sort of like the relationship between energy and matter. Where energy is free flowing and indeterminate, matter is the consolidation of that energy and in effect, where it terminates.

So, it is sort of like the relationship between any two things, the common factor of which is that you, Iacchus, do not understand anything about them.

So, Iacchus, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? And then, can he lift it anyway?

 

[kmortis]

So, it is sort of like the relationship between any two things, the common factor of which is that you, Iacchus, do not understand anything about them.

So, Iacchus, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? And then, can he lift it anyway?

Or the classic Unstopable Force v. Unmovable Object.

 

[Iacchus]

Or, for a less smart-a$$ed responce. No, in fact I would not agree, at least not without a much better proof than just "Iacchus said so".

Are you willing to attest that something can come from nothing then? If you're not sure, then go ask Merc.

 

[drkitten]

Are you willing to attest that something can come from nothing then?

I can not only attest, but demonstrate that something can come from nothing.

Your posts come from your understanding of the world.

Q.e.d.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you willing to attest that something can come from nothing then? If you're not sure, then go ask Merc.

Seriously, this is the sort of thing you are interpreting as endorsing "something comes from nothing"?

You have made up a ""principle" of time to set it into motion", and when that is disagreed with, you claim that the person who disagrees with your inane invention is logically saying that "something comes from nothing"?

I guess I had missed this little bit of deduction, because I was not looking low enough.

 

[hammegk]

An object is irreducibly complex if there is no way it could have evolved.

Prove that, please.

That has nothing to do with constants, which presumably don't evolve.

Not as we currently understand things, anyway.

Also, of course, you have no idea what the result of changing them would be.

~~ Paul

Change any, by a percent or 2, iirc, and we at least would not be here courtesy of rna-dna.

 

[Mercutio]

Change any, by a percent or 2, iirc, and we at least would not be here courtesy of rna-dna.

Sorry, but this brings to me the image of a bunch of us, silicon-based life forms, sipping ammonia-laced drinks at Phil2's Pub, arguing about how if we changed any constants by just an rch, we at least would not be here courtesy of sbc-vbc.

 

[Iacchus]

So, Iacchus, can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? And then, can he lift it anyway?

I honestly don't know. But then again, if God didn't choose to manifest Himself in a "logical manner," we would continue to come up with such silly notions of how something could come from nothing now wouldn't we?

 

[Tricky]

Prove that, please.

It doesn't have to be proved. That is the way it is defined. The definition of "irreducible complexity" is that certain things (they like to use eyes as an example) could not exist in any other possible form. That would mean that a preceding form (as is required for evolution) would be impossible.

Not as we currently understand things, anyway.

Another defintion. "Constant". What do you think it means?

Change any, by a percent or 2, iirc, and we at least would not be here courtesy of rna-dna.

No, it just means "we" would be different. There are any number of organisms which have both RNA and DNA which differs from ours by considerably more than 2%

 

[Mercutio]

I honestly don't know. But then again, if God didn't choose to manifest Himself in a "logical manner," we would continue to come up with such silly notions of how something could come from nothing now wouldn't we?

This one you don't know, but the similar logic in "free will vs. determinism" gives you no pause whatsoever?

The rest of your post is your strawman, repackaged. You have had it explained to you often enough and recently enough that I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Mercutio]

No, it just means "we" would be different. There are any number of organisms which have both RNA and DNA which differs from ours by considerably more than 2%

You have misunderstood hammy here. That is not his argument.

 

[Iacchus]

Seriously, this is the sort of thing you are interpreting as endorsing "something comes from nothing"?

Of course I am requiring that certain people think about what it is I'm saying.

 

[Mercutio]

Of course I am requiring that certain people think about what it is I'm saying.

That was not the question. Were you, in fact, citing this example as someone claiming that something comes from nothing? For that matter, the other post today where you wrote the same thing--were you citing that one as someone claiming that something comes from nothing?