Who designed the designer?

DaveC426913 said:
OK, but you do understand that 'proving' something is not possible, or desired, when it comes to learning how the world works, right?
Click to expand...

If you could explain what you mean by "how the world works"?
What we do is create models to explain the world. The best model wins. But they can always be updated.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew that one :)
That's how science beats faith and other forms of belief in rationalizing our world.
Click to expand...

I would say "trying to rationalise our world" Take the theory of evolution, this changes, just like every theory as you said. I generally agree though.
 
davewhite04 said:
Take the theory of evolution, this changes, just like every theory as you said. I generally agree though.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
Nothing has changed in the concept of evolution, only in the details which Darwin could not have had any knowledge of at that time. Difference!
 
davewhite04 said:
Do you think it won't change?
Click to expand...
I am absolutely convinced that the concept of "evolving complexity" is so overwhelmingly compelling that no logical argument can falsify it.

Just look at chemistry. During the past 4 billion years, the earth has conducted some.......wait for it.......;
TWO TRILLION, QUADRILLION, QUADRILLION, QUADRILLION chemical experiments, each experiment subject to possible evolutionary stresses. Chemical reactions are so fundamental in the universe, that only the assumption of a unprovable supernatural causality (which does the same thing) must be an acceptable logical answer.

God does not dwell at Planck scale, or maybe he does. But the physical evolutionary processes (a universal function) remain true........:rolleyes:

"Evolution" is responsible for the God "Change", the fundamental companion of the God "Time"
(to use metaphor)
 
Last edited:
davewhite04 said:
You know they said that about gravity?
Click to expand...
And how did that end? Gravity is a mathematical physical aspect associated with mass, no?

Unless you want to call Gravity a God. It perfectly usable as a metaphor. Just not in a scriptural sense.
 
Write4U said:
And how did that end? Gravity is a mathematical physical aspect associated with mass, no?

Unless you want to call Gravity a God. It perfectly usable as a metaphor. Just not in a scriptural sense.
Click to expand...

theory of relatively(Newton) was changed by General Relativity(Einstein). I did hear that some of Newtons calculations are used now but that's it.
 
davewhite04 said:
I know. Science has the same amount of objective evidence for the non-existence of the soul , or anything supernatural as the believers have in this subject.
Click to expand...
It's not rational to believe something just because there is no contrary evidence.
 
davewhite04 said:
theory of relatively(Newton) was changed by General Relativity(Einstein). I did hear that some of Newton's calculations are used now but that's it.
Click to expand...
I believe Newton's equations are almost exclusively used today because they describe the earth's local gravitational potentials adequately for practical use.

The extended version is only required for issues associated with spacetime curvature not the resulting mathematics of physical attraction between two massive objects.
The functional mathematics remain almost the same.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I believe Newton's equations are almost exclusively used today because they describe the earth's local gravitational potentials adequately for practical use.

The extended version is only required for issues associated with spacetime curvature not the resulting mathematics of physical attraction between two massive objects.
The functional mathematics remain almost the same.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Like I said, I heard Newtons laws were still active.

I'm not much of a scientist, as you know :)
 
davewhite04 said:
Thanks. Like I said, I heard Newtons laws were still active.

I'm not much of a scientist, as you know :)
Click to expand...
Nor am I, but when I'm interested, I usually do check out recommended links to understand what others see as important and if it conflicts with my perspective. If not, I'm happy to accept the link as supportive of a scientific viewpoint.

Perhaps it's a little unfair. I'm retired and have plenty spare time for research.
 
Write4U said:
Nor am I, but when I'm interested, I usually do check out recommended links to understand what others see as important and if it conflicts with my perspective. If not, I'm happy to accept the link as supportive of a scientific viewpoint.

Perhaps it's a little unfair. I'm retired and have plenty spare time for research.
Click to expand...
Selective reality.

Do you enjoy life?
 
spidergoat said:
It's not rational to believe things without evidence and personal experience cannot be considered legitimate evidence.
Click to expand...
And that's it. I've got nothing to say about your opinion. Most members have established that we can use the word "belief" in debates, but you decide, no use of the word belief in a philosophy/religious forum.
 
davewhite04 said:
Selective reality.

Do you enjoy life?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I consider myself very lucky to be alive. Numerically only an incredibly small percent of living organisms get to contemplate nature and truly enjoy it's infinite artistic expressions.

And that is not a belief, this is demonstrably true.
I am one of the few billion lucky ones..........:rolleyes:
 
Write4U said:
Absolutely, I consider myself very lucky to be alive. Numerically only an incredibly small percent of living organisms get to contemplate nature and truly enjoy it's infinite artistic expressions.

And that is not a belief, this is demonstrably true.
I am one of the few billion lucky ones..........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Good for you :)

I'm the same but sometimes I get pulled away from the reality I want, and then have to find time to sort out my free will reality, my selective reality..
 
davewhite04 said:
And that's it. I've got nothing to say about your opinion. Most members have established that we can use the word "belief" in debates, but you decide, no use of the word belief in a philosophy/religious forum.
Click to expand...
Um... what? I decided no such thing. Why are you talking about the word belief?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top