The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Good point. If I were hacking my way through a jungle and suddenly stumbled across a stone obelisk covered in mysterious writing - then I would be justified in inferring that it had not occurred naturally but that someone or something had designed and created it.

A stone obelisk is not alive and is not capable of evolution by natural selection.

PDN wrote: »

The fact that it was not designed for me personally, or even that I hadn't a clue why it was there, would not be an argument against the conclusion that it was designed by someone or something.

If you are trying to say that the laws of the universe are fine tuned then the existence of an almost infinite amount of waste is most certainly evidence that it is not fine tuned.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Many people could give many different answers to that. I'm quite willing to say that I don't know what the universe is designed for exactly. I don't think I will ever know for sure.

I do think it is a bit of an assumption for Sam to say that the teleological argument is based on the universe being designed for us when no such claim is necessary in order to make an argument from design.

I think the further we contemplate this argument out, the more we realise that there are things we cannot answer, not even the most intelligent or the most wise.

Does this mean the other thing (or things) that the universe was designed for might have absolutely nothing to do with us and that we may never come in contact with it/them?

DigiGal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Without wanting to get into a debate, I'd like to point out that you've just done the same thing that I objected to Dr. Collins doing. You point to the things that appear to have order or be designed as evidence of God but when I point out that there are far more things that appear to have no order, design or purpose you say that humans are limited and we may never understand these things. It's called confirmation bias where you only see the evidence you want to see, the evidence that confirms your preconception, and ignore the rest. Anything that appears to support your case is evidence and anything that doesn't is "a mystery"


Compare this to Dr. Collins contradictory statements:

So no, I was not discriminating against Dr. Collins, I was pointing out that he is guilty of confirmation bias because of his beliefs.

Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”


Science does indeed make God or a higher being very plausable.
There are 2 theories which are widely accepted in the world of quantum physics but cannot as yet be confirmed
1. Theory of quarks, this indeed makes God plausable as in order for a quark to become a physical body (everything is made of quarks) it needs to be observed

2. Parallel universes. This is your anti-god theory

Sam Vimes

DigiGal wrote: »

Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”


Science does indeed make God or a higher being very plausable.
There are 2 theories which are widely accepted in the world of quantum physics but cannot as yet be confirmed
1. Theory of quarks, this indeed makes God plausable as in order for a quark to become a physical body (everything is made of quarks) it needs to be observed

2. Parallel universes. This is your anti-god theory

Or theory 3:

3. We have no idea

Also, the ability to observe something does not require a God and most certainly not a theistic God

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Philosophically speaking, questions such as this (and its partner about why would God take so long to get round to creating man) are nonsensical (in the true sense of the word as being devoid of any sense or meaning). They would only have meaning if God's lifespan or abilities were finite.

That doesn't seem like an intelligent thing to say given your viewpoint. If questions about the size of the universe (in space and time) are nonsensical because god is niether finite in lifespan or ability then any questions about anything inside the universe must also be nonsenical.

PDN wrote: »

Why does all that space have to be 'needed' at all? An infinite God can make a space as big as He likes if He feels like it. An omnipotent God expends no more energy or bother creating a universe that is billions of light years wide than in making one the size of a postage stamp. It makes no difference to Him whether He decides to create something in the twinkling of an eye or over a period of 40 million years.

True, but the argument from design comes from the assumption that the entire universe is designed (maybe not for humans, but designed none the less), if there is a part of the universe that could be shown to undesigned, it would mean that its creation and existence was outside of gods influence.

PDN wrote: »

If we assume that God were pushed for time, or limited in how much space He could actually create, then economy becomes relevant and we may ask why take so long or why make something so big. But such assumptions presume that God is not omnipotent or infinite, and so, if used to argue against the Christian concept of God, produce arguments that are entirely circular.

I dont the question is based on the assumption that god could be constricted by time or space, just on the assumption that a perfect, all powerful being would be efficient as well.

DigiGal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Or theory 3:

3. We have no idea

Also, the ability to observe something does not require a God and most certainly not a theistic God

There is no we have no idea about anythin I'm afraid....good aul laws of physics took care of that

I never said it had anything to do with a god, its just the only theory that accomodates it. I myself am a theory 2er as it also accomodates quarks...and makes the most sense, science wise

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

There are 3 types of Intelligent Civilisation which can evolve from a scientific standpoint.....
Type 1
Type 2 and
Type 3

We are ....type 0

What are you basing this one? Who's work is this?

DigiGal wrote: »

Essentially we are nothing.

What a lovely notion

DigiGal wrote: »

Who are we to decide what created a body as large as the universe, to say its this God or that God.

We aren't to say anything. If God hadn't revealed Himself, we wouldn't be in any position to "decide" whether or not such a being existed.

DigiGal wrote: »

If everyone just kept their mouth shut and were secure in their own faith and beliefs then there would be alot less war and petty arguements alot less of the horrible crimes commited in Gods name.....

Cue the Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot argument and it's relationship to atheism again.

People distort ideologies. This happens with atheism too.

I believe the death toll reached over 100,000,000 people in less than 100 years in state atheist regimes.

This didn't happen because of atheism, but people distorted and used atheism for their personal goals. Likewise atrocities based on religion don't happen because of religion, but because people distort and use it for their own goals. I refer to this as distortionism.

DigiGal wrote: »

Do you honestly think that something so powerful that it could create endless time and space would care if this text is right or if you sleep with men or women

Do you honestly think that if a higher power created everything that it would not take any interest in any of it's creation whatsoever at all?

The size of the earth argument isn't a good argument. It would convince me more of my faith rather than cause me to doubt it.

DigiGal wrote: »

Can't we all just be nice and live well for the sake of making this short time pleasent for ourselves and everyone else rather than a fear of some powerful higher being.

If Christianity helps me to do that, all the better

I have no reason to fear. If God is with us, who is against us?

DigiGal wrote: »

A type 3 civilisation has no need for war or fighting. Until we are that intelligent we will most likely never know the face of God or whatever is out there and we will most likely have destroyed ourselves by then being to absorbed by petty arguements about race, religion, creed, sexual habits.....It is a sad world one that needs a fear of Hell to stop anarchy

You have yet to back up where this came from, and who wrote it.

DigiGal wrote: »

In the end it all stems from a fear of the unknown, a fear of death a search for higher meaning, a feeling of insignifigance.

I'm perfectly significant even with my belief in God! - I find it rather haughty for people to claim that religion stems from a fear from the unknown when they themselves have not committed themselves to a faith. If anyone has the right to tell anyone why they believe what they believe it is the believer surely?

DigiGal wrote: »

But to be signifigant just treat others well, make a difference and then ytehre will be a lasting impression on those you leave behind, thats how you live on..

If Christianity helps me to do this, what are the odds for you?

DigiGal wrote: »

and either way death is a release from suffering of life no matter where you go.

Life causes suffering only? That is a horribly depressing view on human existence.

toiletduck

Jakkass wrote: »

There are 3 types of Intelligent Civilisation which can evolve from a scientific standpoint.....
Type 1
Type 2 and
Type 3

We are ....type 0

What are you basing this one? Who's work is this?

I believe the poster is referring to the Kardashev scale.

Type 1 can harness the entire power of a planet.
Type 2 do the same with a Sun.
Type 3 with a galaxy.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Without wanting to get into a debate, I'd like to point out that you've just done the same thing that I objected to Dr. Collins doing. You point to the things that appear to have order or be designed as evidence of God but when I point out that there are far more things that appear to have no order, design or purpose you say that humans are limited and we may never understand these things. It's called confirmation bias where you only see the evidence you want to see, the evidence that confirms your preconception, and ignore the rest. Anything that appears to support your case is evidence and anything that doesn't is "a mystery"

Sam, if this weren't a strawman argument you'd be exactly right.

Things do appear to be designed, they do appear to have some form of order.

You argue that we say that the universe is designed just for us, I argue, no we haven't.

I don't know everything about the universe, and I'm not going to lie and say I do. There appears to be order, and there appears to be design, I'm not going to say that I know everything about the order or the design. However, the appearance of such serves as an indication that both design and order exist in some form.

You accuse me of confirmation bias for holding a viewpoint that is actually rather consistent.

I suspect that you have strawmanned both Francis Collins, and myself, rather than Francis Collins and I demonstrating any form of confirmation bias.

philologos

toiletduck wrote: »

I believe the poster is referring to the Kardashev scale.

Type 1 can harness the entire power of a planet.
Type 2 do the same with a Sun.
Type 3 with a galaxy.

That would be fine if DigiGal wasn't adding her own assumptions to the science and passing the assumptions off as science. The article doesn't show that Kardashev had the same views as DigiGal to religion, and even if he did they would have nothing to do with science.

DigiGal wrote: »

2. Parallel universes. This is your anti-god theory

Are parallel universes really anti-God? Would they really destroy belief in God? I'm not entirely sure they would.

toiletduck

I agree. Just throwing up the link.

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

However, the appearance of such serves as an indication that both design and order exist in some form.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think a universe without order but with some form of life in it would look like?

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

What are you basing this one? Who's work is this? .

This is the work of well many quantum and theoretical physicists ...I read it from a paper by Michio Kaku

Jakkass wrote: »

We aren't to say anything. If God hadn't revealed Himself, we wouldn't be in any position to "decide" whether or not such a being existed
.

I didn't see him....did you.... if ya saw God inform the bloody papers..or are you just going on the work in that massive contradiction that is The Bible

Jakkass wrote: »

Cue the Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot argument and it's relationship to atheism again.

People distort ideologies. This happens with atheism too.

I believe the death toll reached over 100,000,000 people in less than 100 years in state atheist regimes.

This didn't happen because of atheism, but people distorted and used atheism for their personal goals. Likewise atrocities based on religion don't happen because of religion, but because people distort and use it for their own goals. I refer to this as distortionism..

Great I'm being compared to a dictator because I don't belive in religious warfare. Hitler was a good little catholic boy....he killed 6 million jews...why because of their religion

Jakkass wrote: »

o you honestly think that if a higher power created everything that it would not take any interest in any of it's creation whatsoever at all?.

No i don't thats the point I was making to begin with.....

Jakkass wrote: »

If Christianity helps me to do that, all the better


I have no reason to fear. If God is with us, who is against us.

the Devil....other humans...ourselves








I

Jakkass wrote: »

f Christianity helps me to do this, what are the odds for you?[
Ah the old my life will be ruined I must be evil as I don't believe God......oh I must hide under a rock now....The odds are i'm comfortable in what I believe and I love my life and other people in it. .

Jakkass wrote: »

Life causes suffering only? That is a horribly depressing view on human existence.

You call me idealistic then say this....hmmmmm

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, if this weren't a strawman argument you'd be exactly right.

Things do appear to be designed, they do appear to have some form of order.

You argue that we say that the universe is designed just for us, I argue, no we haven't.

I don't know everything about the universe, and I'm not going to lie and say I do. There appears to be order, and there appears to be design, I'm not going to say that I know everything about the order or the design. However, the appearance of such serves as an indication that both design and order exist in some form.

You accuse me of confirmation bias for holding a viewpoint that is actually rather consistent.

I suspect that you have strawmanned both Francis Collins, and myself, rather than Francis Collins and I demonstrating any form of confirmation bias.

Jakkass has picked out one thing I said, misinterpreted it, exaggerated its importance, ignored my clarification of the statement to "the laws of the universe are fine tuned", accused me of a random logical fallacy and dismissed my point entirely without dealing with it. I for one am shocked

philologos

pts wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what do you think a universe without order but with some form of life in it would look like?

I think that task is somehow beyond me. I think it's beyond everyone. We have enough problems discussing about the nature of our own universe without involving another hypothetical fictional universe in the mix.

DigiGal wrote: »

You call me idealistic then say this....hmmmmm

When did I call you idealistic?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know everything about the universe, and I'm not going to lie and say I do. There appears to be order, and there appears to be design, I'm not going to say that I know everything about the order or the design. However, the appearance of such serves as an indication that both design and order exist in some form.

You accuse me of confirmation bias for holding a viewpoint that is actually rather consistent.

Your viewpoint is only consistent when you percieve something in the universe to be ordered, forget that you dont know everything in the universe and start making claims as if your perceptions are accurate. You seem to forget that just like there are things which might have an order, but one we dont recognise, its also possible that there are things that have no order, even though we percieve one to exist.
Instead of saying "we dont know everything about the universe and our perception might not recognise everything there is to know about an event" when you aproach all events, you only apply it to events which disagree with your preconcieved notion that the universe is designed ie only to events which will confirm your preconcieved bias, ergo confirmational bias.

Mark Hamill

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jakkass has picked out one thing I said, misinterpreted it, exaggerated its importance, ignored my clarification of the statement to "the laws of the universe are fine tuned", accused me of a random logical fallacy and dismissed my point entirely without dealing with it. I for one am shocked

This your first day on this thread?

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

That would be fine if DigiGal wasn't adding her own assumptions to the science and passing the assumptions off as science. The article doesn't show that Kardashev had the same views as DigiGal to religion, and even if he did they would have nothing to do with science.



Are parallel universes really anti-God? Would they really destroy belief in God? I'm not entirely sure they would.

Im not adding any assumptions to anything they were my own views on religion I never once said the scale said anthing about religion I was just showing our simple insignifigance

No they are not anti god but atheists use them as an anti god theory....i said theory...not proven....

philologos

Sam, simply put your points on this thread so far have made no sense.

PDN has rightly demonstrated to you why it doesn't make sense. If you want to keep repeating that's fine, but I'd prefer you to clarify why a teleological argument somehow needs for us to assume that the universe is designed just for us.

You then go on and say that life conforms to the universe, and not the universe to life. Which is true, but the universe has to have had certain conditions for life to even exist in the first place. Therefore your point doesn't refute the need for life to be sustained by conditions in the universe.

Sam Vimes wrote:

when I point out that there are far more things that appear to have no order

I personally believe that there could be a reason for why God would have designed the universe the way it is, but due to our limited intellects we cannot exactly understand why. I've already said this much.

I don't claim to know everything about cosmology. I don't think anyone can know everything about cosmology. Rather simply put I would have thought.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A stone obelisk is not alive and is not capable of evolution by natural selection.

Wow! Talk about avoiding the point with petty obfuscation. And you complain about JC and others doing the same thing?

I have just used an illustration to demonstrate to you that there is no logical requirement for an argument from design for every feature of the design to be understandable or relevant to us.

You dodge the argument by referring to a detail that is totally irrelevant to the point being made.

If you are trying to say that the laws of the universe are fine tuned then the existence of an almost infinite amount of waste is most certainly evidence that it is not fine tuned.

If the designer has an infinite space to work with, then there is no waste. Therefore there is no such evidence and you are talking in circles.

Let's try another illustration. A designer may come up with an engine that uses parts made of diamonds rather than steel. You can complain that it is a waste because he could just as easily have used a less expensive material - but if the designer has access to unlimited resources of diamonds then there is no waste. The waste only exists in the head of someone else who lacks the designer's unlimited wealth.

Think about it. It's a perfectly sensible philosophiocal point. BTW, I would prefer it if you addressed the point being made rather than replying with some irrelevant dodge such as 'But living organisms don't sparkle like diamonds'.

Mark Hamill wrote:

That doesn't seem like an intelligent thing to say given your viewpoint. If questions about the size of the universe (in space and time) are nonsensical because god is niether finite in lifespan or ability then any questions about anything inside the universe must also be nonsenical.

And your Beamonesque leap of logic doesn't seem an intelligent thing to say given your viewpoint.

The infinite nature of God does not prevent us from seeing evidence of design in the universe. Think of the stone obelisk in the jungle. Whether I think of the obelisk as being made by an infinite or a finite designer makes no difference. It only becomes relevant if someone tries to argue on the grounds of the economy of its construction.

True, but the argument from design comes from the assumption that the entire universe is designed (maybe not for humans, but designed none the less), if there is a part of the universe that could be shown to undesigned, it would mean that its creation and existence was outside of gods influence.

No, that isn't true. The argument from design comes from the assumption that certain features of the universe show evidence of design. However, since our intellect and perception are limited, it would be presumptuous and illogical of us to insist that we are capable of detecting every piece of design. However, I wish you luck in demonstrating that something is undesigned - that sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing.

I dont the question is based on the assumption that god could be constricted by time or space, just on the assumption that a perfect, all powerful being would be efficient as well.

Once again this is nonsense. Efficiency is only a virtue where resources are limited. To an omnipotent infinite being, efficiency does not exist since all activities involve the same amount of effort.

DigiGal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This your first day on this thread?

its mine.....I see that this is an unwinnable arguement...
Like I said i'm secure in my beliefs I don't want to push them on to anyone...i was just saying what I thought and was ripped apart...we'll all know when we die until then just well....shut up already and get on with your life, why should it matter if people have the same faith as you or not....in the grand scheme of things does it matter no

This is why we have such problems on this earth...
I will have my words twisted no more.....good day

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that task is somehow beyond me. I think it's beyond everyone. We have enough problems discussing about the nature of our own universe without involving another hypothetical fictional universe in the mix.

I think you are right, the reason I asked is because I couldn't work out how you seemed so sure that there is order, when you don't know how things would be if there wasn't order.

It is semi-related to what the great David Attenborough said when discussing why he didn't give "credit" to God for the design of living things:

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

There are 3 types of Intelligent Civilisation which can evolve from a scientific standpoint.....
Type 1
Type 2 and
Type 3

We are ....type 0

Essentially we are nothing.
Who are we to decide what created a body as large as the universe, to say its this God or that God.
If everyone just kept their mouth shut and were secure in their own faith and beliefs then there would be alot less war and petty arguements alot less of the horrible crimes commited in Gods name.....
Do you honestly think that something so powerful that it could create endless time and space would care if this text is right or if you sleep with men or women
Can't we all just be nice and live well for the sake of making this short time pleasent for ourselves and everyone else rather than a fear of some powerful higher being.

A type 3 civilisation has no need for war or fighting. Until we are that intelligent we will most likely never know the face of God or whatever is out there and we will most likely have destroyed ourselves by then being to absorbed by petty arguements about race, religion, creed, sexual habits.....It is a sad world one that needs a fear of Hell to stop anarchy

In the end it all stems from a fear of the unknown, a fear of death a search for higher meaning, a feeling of insignifigance.
But to be signifigant just treat others well, make a difference and then ytehre will be a lasting impression on those you leave behind, thats how you live on..
and either way death is a release from suffering of life no matter where you go.

This isn't science. You've attached your own opinion onto the science, and have attempted to pass it off as science. This isn't honest or useful in a discussion.

DigiGal

There are 3 types of Intelligent Civilisation which can evolve from a scientific standpoint.....
Type 1
Type 2 and
Type 3

We are ....type 0 science the reason why I have the opinion below.....



My opinion
Essentially we are nothing.
Who are we to decide what created a body as large as the universe, to say its this God or that God.
If everyone just kept their mouth shut and were secure in their own faith and beliefs then there would be alot less war and petty arguements alot less of the horrible crimes commited in Gods name.....
Do you honestly think that something so powerful that it could create endless time and space would care if this text is right or if you sleep with men or women
Can't we all just be nice and live well for the sake of making this short time pleasent for ourselves and everyone else rather than a fear of some powerful higher being.

A type 3 civilisation has no need for war or fighting. Until we are that intelligent we will most likely never know the face of God or whatever is out there and we will most likely have destroyed ourselves by then being to absorbed by petty arguements about race, religion, creed, sexual habits.....It is a sad world one that needs a fear of Hell to stop
anarch

In the end it all stems from a fear of the unknown, a fear of death a search for higher meaning, a feeling of insignifigance.
But to be signifigant just treat others well, make a difference and then ytehre will be a lasting impression on those you leave behind, thats how you live on..
and either way death is a release from suffering of life no matter where you go.



That clear it up nice and well for ya now no more throwin accusations round for you :P

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

Like I said i'm secure in my beliefs I don't want to push them on to anyone...i was just saying what I thought and was ripped apart...we'll all know when we die until then just well....shut up already and get on with your life, why should it matter if people have the same faith as you or not....in the grand scheme of things does it matter no

1. If you come onto a forum with your opinion, you should expect people to challenge your opinion.

2. As for "shutting up and getting on with your life". People will discuss because they want to discuss. If you don't want to discuss that's fine, but don't tell other people to "shut up" because you disagree with some of the viewpoints here.

3. As for in the grand scheme. People will argue that it does matter very much whether or not you believe. It transforms and changes lives. If you don't wish to adopt this view, that's fine. An acceptance of disagreement would be a good step forward.

Good luck to you

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Wow! Talk about avoiding the point with petty obfuscation. And you complain about JC and others doing the same thing?

You pointed to something that had been designed and said that it is logical to conclude that it had been designed. I pointed out that not everything that appears to be designed actually is and that your conclusion could well be incorrect. It's quite relevant. The teleological argument begins with the assumption that complexity requires design and that is a flawed assumption. With the knowledge that complexity can occur without design and that 99.9999999999999% of the universe appears to serve no purpose and have no order, to assert that is has been designed is ludicrous

PDN wrote: »

If the designer has an infinite space to work with, then there is no waste. Therefore there is no such evidence and you are talking in circles.

Let's try another illustration. A designer may come up with an engine that uses parts made of diamonds rather than steel. You can complain that it is a waste because he could just as easily have used a less expensive material - but if the designer has access to unlimited resources of diamonds then there is no waste. The waste only exists in the head of someone else who lacks the designer's unlimited wealth.

Think about it. It's a perfectly sensible philosophiocal point. BTW, I would prefer it if you addressed the point being made rather than replying with some irrelevant dodge such as 'But living organisms don't sparkle like diamonds'.

If an engine uses unnecessarily extravagant components, it is not "fine tuned", which is the term I was arguing against. An engine that has trillions of unnecessary components is wasteful.

Something that is fine tuned uses exactly the right components to perform its required function, no more, no less. If you are unable to say what the function of everything in the universe is, you cannot claim that it is fine tuned. Fine tuned for what?

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

1. If you come onto a forum with your opinion, you should expect people to challenge your opinion.

2. As for "shutting up and getting on with your life". People will discuss because they want to discuss. If you don't want to discuss that's fine, but don't tell other people to "shut up" because you disagree with some of the viewpoints here.

3. As for in the grand scheme. People will argue that it does matter very much whether or not you believe. It transforms and changes lives. If you don't wish to adopt this view, that's fine. An acceptance of disagreement would be a good step forward.

Good luck to you

Ah man my luck is awesome

550 in the LC

Place in art college

Scholarship

Wonderful 6 year relationship

Job

Own flat

Great friends and family

Band are taking off....


Couldn't be happier

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

I have just used an illustration to demonstrate to you that there is no logical requirement for an argument from design for every feature of the design to be understandable or relevant to us.

But an argument for design must conclude that every feature of the design is relevant to something in the universe. If any of these features are entirely irrelevant to anything in the universe then it is pointless to have them in the universe which means that if they exist, god made for absolutely no reason..

PDN wrote: »

If the designer has an infinite space to work with, then there is no waste. Therefore there is no such evidence and you are talking in circles.

Let's try another illustration. A designer may come up with an engine that uses parts made of diamonds rather than steel. You can complain that it is a waste because he could just as easily have used a less expensive material - but if the designer has access to unlimited resources of diamonds then there is no waste. The waste only exists in the head of someone else who lacks the designer's unlimited wealth.

Think about it. It's a perfectly sensible philosophiocal point. BTW, I would prefer it if you addressed the point being made rather than replying with some irrelevant dodge such as 'But living organisms don't sparkle like diamonds'.

The waste is not in the amount of materials used, its in the function of the materials used. If you have access to infinite supply of diamonds then building an engine from one is not necessarily a waste, but if you also have access to an infinite amount of steel, and if steel would make a better engine (ie more efficient) then it would be pointless to use the diamonds.

PDN wrote: »

The infinite nature of God does not prevent us from seeing evidence of design in the universe. Think of the stone obelisk in the jungle. Whether I think of the obelisk as being made by an infinite or a finite designer makes no difference. It only becomes relevant if someone tries to argue on the grounds of the economy of its construction.

Its relevent if you claim that the designer is intelligent and that every apsect of the creation is designed for something (wether that something is specified or not). If you had an infinitely intelligent designer with access to an infinite supply of all materials, wouldn't the most efficient design be chosen?

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't true. The argument from design comes from the assumption that certain features of the universe show evidence of design. However, since our intellect and perception are limited, it would be presumptuous and illogical of us to insist that we are capable of detecting every piece of design.

Its equally presumptuous and illogical to insist that what we percieve to be design actually is design without any actual evidence beyond our perception. Its like the pool of water remarking how the dent in the ground must have designed for it because it fits its shape so well.

PDN wrote: »

Once again this is nonsense. Efficiency is only a virtue where resources are limited. To an omnipotent infinite being, efficiency does not exist since all activities involve the same amount of effort.

Efficiency is always a virtue, particularly to a supposedly perfect being like god (besides its efficiency in how it runs, not just how big it is). If all activities are equal of effort (and all effort is nil to an omnipotent being) it means all activities are arbitrary, so why settle on this one (this universe the way it is)? Is cant be random? God would know the outcome of any universe he creates why settle on this? Its like your example of the designer with the diamond engine. Sure they could build a diamond engine, but the could also build a more efficient engine out of something else. Why arbitrarily use diamond? Who are they showing off to?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that task is somehow beyond me. I think it's beyond everyone. We have enough problems discussing about the nature of our own universe without involving another hypothetical fictional universe in the mix.

If you cant imagine a universe without order, then how can you say what a uinverse with order is actually like? How do you know this isn't a universe without order.

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

Ah man my luck is awesome

550 in the LC

Place in art college

Scholarship

Wonderful 6 year relationship

Job

Own flat

Great friends and family

Band are taking off....


Couldn't be happier

That's good
I didn't mean the "Good luck" in spite you know.