Not at all. I explained WHY I stated such. Glad to entertain you. One clearly made by the factors that make what you're describing as highly difficult.
And I showed why all of that is assumptive. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I disagree. What space would the inherent determination of all matter give a designer the will to act, or even to change his mind? Better that there be random events, so that will can be manifested.
Pseudo-randomness is randomness- the pseudo part is where the will can be manifested. Also one has to keep in mind that if everything is pseudo-random or random, anything that is directed by the designer to manifest his will can be done because that 'direction' (will0 would go unnoticed as it would simply be seen as something part of that 'randomness'- Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You know what... The only thing you demonstrated is how a person COULD rationalize and justify something to ridiculous proportions. That's the ONLY thing you demonstrated. Ok, well I agree. Some people can do that and some people would do that. But, despite your attacks on my character for judging such behavior, I maintain that such behavior lacks critical thinking, logic and subjective judgment. This is clearly demonstrated by something like a car or a computer. A car or computer is designed and built upon specifications that are based on hard, solid knowledge of physics and principles. A person COULD rationalize and justify a way that would make it apparent to them that physics is a lie and has no true application. Their judgment would still be demonstratively impaired as evidenced by the manufacture of cars and computers.
Thank you for the qualification of 'ridiculous'- Okay, you may maintain that. Unfortunately I've not said that Evolution is bullshit or a lie. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're quite welcomePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help. I have every intention of doing so. I never claimed you did. I claimed that you demonstrated that some people can justify and rationalize.
That would be an extra-ordinary achievement if someone can argue that everything about physics is a lie- I could imagine them taking it and changing the understanding of it- but still utilizing the same data as presented by physics. But to say its an outright lie- I don't know... I certainly can't imagine someone arguing that, but if you can... that's greats. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is on par with my claiming that the idea of a deity or supernatural being created the universe in a very complicated conspiracy to make it look as though he hadn't was extreme. How hypocritical of you.
Lol... I'm just appreciating that an argument that all of physics is a lie is amazing- I've never heard of one- And I haven't said that the designer 'hid himself'- it depends on how you look at it- my perspective is different. Anyhow, there is nothing more to say really, so good luck with the rest of the discussion guys. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You need to clearly define the 'pseudo'. But your theory proposes that everything is directed, based on elemental physical nature. Thus, it falls back into the same precept as evolution and biogenesis: naturalistic processes are sufficient to explain all phenomena. We could suppose that there was some Designer working there, but we could more easily (and more simply) conclude not.
pseudo- means fake.... If its 'fake' randomness- something is introducing the randomness whether it be nature or the designer- one can never know. No- Its both. Everything is directed- but it can be directed by nature and a designer. the direction provided by 'nature' is also indirectly directed by the designer because he designed nature in the first place. And yes naturalistic processes are sufficient to explain all phenomenon- based upon probabilities that these things can happens however improbable they may be (because of infinite chances)- but the designer ensures that they do happen a certain way. The 'simple' conclusion would be the naturalistic one- but there is no way to 'conclude not'- unless you're going to start assuming that the simpler conclusion is indeed what is reality. While the designer would be the only argument if the universe supposedly has a purpose- but that is an extra assumption. And I don't think a naturalistic explanation can be provided why physical laws are constant- if they are- and not absolutely random- what defines those laws- unless one says the laws are self-determined to be constant- then you start blurring the line between designer and natural- it would seem that the designer is the laws itself..... But what is a 'law'- the laws created everything and they guide/direct everything- but what really is it no one really knows because its not an object or a result of something (like atoms) but it is what it is and through which came everything and neither were these laws created from anything as they are self-determined- isn't that starting to match the definition of the designer (God)? In either case a designer can not be concluded 'not to exist'- in my opinion, others may hold other views. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But your point was that it indeed wasn't random: that naturalistic determinacy exists even at the basest levels. If you're just arguing that such seemingly random processes are responsible for everything, one could as well just argue that there really is such a thing as randomness. Or are you saying that what appears determinate in context of, say, one atom, produces a chain of events that is indeterminate several atoms or some unspecified distance away, akin to dampening chaos over distance or context? Again, disagreed. As you mention, with a naturalistic explanation, one does not require a designer.
No what I said was that everything natural is guided by laws, which are not random- since the base is not 'random' what is it that is introducing the otherwise 'randomness' observed? I would attribute that to be inherent to the system- thus 'randomness' is guided- which I would call pseudo-randomness. Not necessarily- I added more to what I was saying- perhaps you should read the rest that I added... Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thought you were done here? Make up your mind. We're just sooo irresistible aren't we?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
GeoffP and I am having a much different discussion then what I was having with you. You aren't irresistible sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The laws are human shorthand descriptions of patterns, many with bases in random, pseudorandom, and otherwise unpredictable substrate events. Nothing "introduces" randomness - it is as fundamental - or more - as "cause and effect". Certainly no "guiding" is implied.
