Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by pluto2, Jul 16, 2016.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Can you not follow the discussion between A and B?
    Eventually, through one-up-manship, one reaches a concept that is beyond bettering.
    It speaks nothing of the reality of the situation, but provides a logical path by which that concept could arise.
    If you see a pattern to the cycle of rain, and the only patterns you generally see are those made by beings then the pattern of the rain cycle that you see would seem to be due to a being.
    This being would have to be powerful, as it controls the rain.
    Other beings might then be thought to control other things (the sun, the moon, the oceans etc).
    But we don't see these beings; therefore the beings must be invisible.
    These powerful invisible beings are what could originally be taken to be gods.
    Nothing all that new here, just a matter of scale.

    In the above conversation between A and B there is also no new concept that is not simply an extrapolation.
    The end result might be something very different from the starting point, but each step is simply an extrapolation.

    But the entire process says nothing about reality, only about what is thought to be reality.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Your "therefore" is non sequitur.

    How does something being beyond nature mean it is beyond our imagination?

    Ah but God is beyond the world...
    Your senses do not interact with it.

    ...sorry, I just saw the rest of your post. I see there's no need to respond paragraph my paragraph.

    Admitting that you can't be bothered wasting time on logical deduction pretty much puts a bow on your viewpoint in this discussion.

    It doesn't interfere with your ability to hold your beliefs, it simply means you have opted out of any desire or ability to discuss or defend them.

    (Rarely on the internet does one find someone actually saying 'I don't want to discuss or defend; I just want to hold my views'. That is refreshingly black and white.)

    Anyway, the rest of us are interested in actually discussing it, so I'm gonna move on to people who ... "give a sh*t".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Imagination: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

    Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched.

    Now explain how it is possible to imagine something that is beyond nature, without some prior experience, knowledge, or information?

    I didn't say it did.

    I didn't say that logical deduction is a waste of time.
    Examples like the one you gave are, as it does nothing to progress our particular discussion.

    Take what I say, put your own spin on it, then respond to my point as though your spin is what I meant.
    How original.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Doesn't you have ignore direct responses or question.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It does nothing to progress your particular stance. It does a lot to address mine.

    It demonstrates the use of logic and axioms in the absence of truth. Whcih is exactly what we've been talking about.

    Having literally just said you can't be bothered and don't care to address your opponent's point, this would be the height of hypocrisy - if it weren't so transparent . There is nothing so indicative of a concession as one's opponent saying 'I suddenly don't have time for this.'
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Logic cannot be antithetical to any human. Our whole perception is based on the rules of logic, whether we know it or not.

    You use logic to define logic, which not logical. Your illogic is further amplified when you state that to know truth IS impossible, while believing your own claim to be true.
    Do you see where I'm coming from?

  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. And yet, the moment some is presented, what do you do - refute it? Challenge it? No. You admit you can't even be bothered to care.

    Care to shoot yourself in the other foot?
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I sure do.

    A moment ago, you couldn't be bothered with logic. Now, it's your friend.

    I've got you flip-flopping.

    Look at that other foot. It's so pink and tender...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Is this really necessary?

  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    So you believe in God because you lack imagination of things outside of nature?
    Well, as reasons go it's a fairly bold admission.
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    How does this answer the question?

  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This miffed me:
    While we invariably disagree, you've always been respectful.
  15. river

    the designer is nobody you could know .
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Pithy. Mysterious.
  17. river

    go back to the ancient knowledge .
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Why'd you say ''you got me flip-flopping''?
    I didn't say that ''no one gives a shit about logic''. No one gives sh*t about spades.

    ''I didn't say that logical deduction is a waste of time.
    Examples like the one you gave are, as it does nothing to progress our particular discussion

    I've shown you to be fundamentally illogical, yet all you do is is cite a simple deduction to show how logical you think you are.

    Then please reciprocate by not fobbing me off.
    I made quite a few points earlier and didn't respond to them.

    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    That you even ask the question is telling enough.
    My previous posts provide an example of how imagination of such is possible.
    What aspect of it are you struggling with?
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Science assumes life on earth formed by chance. This, in essence, assumes a universal god of chaos; random and probability. You can't personify this god because he/she/it is never the same. Whereas most religions believe life is part of a natural design and has deterministic causes, allowing a personification.

    Random or the god of chance, can't help but be evil, half the time, since tails will come up as often as heads. A deterministic god, would need to be mostly good ,for life to persist, because life is very delicate. It would not take much deterministic evil, to stop life in its tracks.

    In evolution, even if change is random; flip of a coin mutations, there is a positive deterministic principle, called natural selection. All the all, the math appears to add up to a 50/50 god of chance, being supervised by a deterministic God of good. This means evil is about 25%, enough to make life interesting.

    In tradition, God hands off the earth to Lucifer/Satan, with the earth being Satan's project. Satan is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil; 50/50 odds. But at the same time, there is a fail safe built into a deterministic design; life persists and evolves in spite of the evil side of the coin.

    Science has made great progress defining the Satan principle; probability and chaos. But it has not yet fully developed the deterministic aspect of life, even though there is enough data to see it. The deterministic principle of natural selection is connected to water.

    If you look at evolution, water has always been there, from day one. Water is timeless. Water is a failsafe because water is chemically stable and does not change with time. On the other hand, the organic aspects of life can undergo nearly endless changes, because carbon can form covalent bonds with many atoms including oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, etc.. These can react to form polymers, which can then pack and stack into endless variety. There is plenty of room for the random principe on the carbon side. Water, on the other hand, is like a persistent deterministic floor that has not changed and does not change.

    Water generates its own potentials, through hydrogen bonding, such that any random changes in the organics dissolved in water need to align with the potential of the water and potential of all the rest of the organics, that already align with the water through evolution. Water allows determinism to choose the good more often than evil; loaded dice.

    If you take any level of life and remove the water ,there is no life. You can dehydrate yeast and add sugar to see nothing will happen. Organics alone is not sufficient for life. If we substitute any other solvent, very little if anything will happen. It is not alive. The organic are not aligned with the new solvents, since they were designed with water in mind. If add back the water, everything comes back to life.

    Water has very unique properties and is the most anomalous substance known to science, with over 70 anomalies relative to other materials. Water is the swiss army knife of chemicals, with the organics of life needing to conform to a series of water checks points, before it can be called life.

    The persistence of water, places water outside the scope of Satan; 50/50 odds. While water is part of natural design being the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen gas; H2. However, hydrogen gas can change and become part of many molecules; reductions. This makes water the first unchangeable principle of chemical determinism in the universe.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    There are no aspects to struggle with.

  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Because your view of how logic works appears to clouded by proximity to the God issue, I'm analogizing - using a mundane example to show the principle is sound.

    You've provided an example of that cloudiness right here.
    Whether one "gives a sh*t" about subject X has no impact on the fact that the logic applies to X equally well.
    That's kind of the point of logic - it's generalized and universal.

    What you really mean is: they don't progress your discussion.
    If you can't grasp (or don't care) about how axioms are formed and rules are built when it comes to something as simple as cards, there's no way you'll be able to apply it to something as nuanced as the concept of God or truth.

    No, you haven't because
    a] you appear to not understand how logic is formed and
    b] you've misrepresented my position.

    Don't be a hypocrite. It is you who started down the road of dismissal.

    (If I were a lesser man, I would consider an adequate response to be: "A complete waste of thinking time, IMO ... No-one gives a sh*t.")

    But I'm not a lesser man, so let's start back where it went off the rails:

    Assertion: no human can know the "truth".
    All our senses are limited; they can be fooled. (This is demonstrable. We all agree; it can always be demonstrated to any remaining doubting Thomas')
    Because of this, we have no way of externally verifying that what we are sensing is "true". (Follows directly from above).

    The above is internally-consistent logic. No rational person can disagree with the premises, and no rational person will find any way that the assertion is not directly and inevitably affirmed by the premises.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2016
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    This isn't a discussion on logic. You were the one who made the excuse that what you believe to be true, is not truth, but logic. Your attempt to give an example of how your position is to be described as purely logical, with no belief that what you trumpet is true, doesn't even reach the bar.
    You then shroud it in the excuse of showing me a pointless deduction, (which doesn't even require formal logic training to conclude), which does nothing to explain how your seeming belief in the truth of what you believe, is nothing but logic.

    That's not cloudiness, that's me telling you, in a round about way, that you're wasting time, by talking about stuff that does nothing to explain your position.
    You're attempt to solve it by replacing spade with God, and so on, is quite laughable.
    Why don't you just come out with a straight answer, so we can advance?

    You claim ''no one can know the truth''.
    You claim it is because logic acknowledges (wierd) that the deductions are based on limited senses.
    You claim we have limited senses, and as such cannot know truth.
    You claim no one has monopoly on the truth.
    You claim that I sense God, therefore I believe.
    You claim that it is human nature to fear the unseen.
    You claim that the supernatural is the ultimate unseen.

    These are some of the many claims you make, yet you say you don't believe any of them, as they are all logic. When asked to show how it is possible to show how God could have entered into the human psyche, you provide me with the black and red spade gag, and start banging on about logical axioms.
    Are you suggesting that God is an axiom? I'm not sure anymore. Please explain, if you can.

    I understand how logic is formed. What I don't understand is why you use logic to define logic, and deny that you do, when it is in print for the whole world to see.

    Not only are you in denial about your role in bringing this discussion to ad hominem fest, you fail to respond to both sentences, choosing to carry on with your evasion.

    Here you are: I made quite a few points earlier and didn't respond to them. Can you respond to them, then maybe we can get back on track?

    That's what you believe. It has nothing to do with logic.

    How does that tie in with '' no one can ever know the truth''?

    Again, are you devoid of mind and intelligence?
    Or have you come to you person beliefs by other sources, meaning you don't have to apply them?

    Fine. Show it without changing the subject matter to red and black spades.


Share This Page