proving the obvious

[PsychicPenguin]

but the flaw is the hens do not directly create the eggs,if they did do the creation of an egg would take far more intelligence than a cakemthe same is true of soil,the design of grain already exists it takes energy from the soil,if the soil created the seed,then indeed this would take a lot more intelligence than we have.

That is not a flaw. The argument remains true. Somewhere along the line there is a non-intelligent cause. As not all cause is intelligent, why should the ultimate cause be intelligent? From all that we can see in the cake example, the most intelligent cause is the 2nd last cause, the baker (after the oven).

Again, I repeat the important point:

1. The ultimate source does not have to be something intelligent

2. Just because something exsits, it doesn't mean that it was designed by intelligence.

3. Natural processes exist.

[The Proposer]

if i worked on a production line that produced sancastle buckets it doesnt mean i am the intelligence behind the design,i am only one of the factors in the production,i am not the ultimate designer and creator.

do you mean everything is a naturally occuring process,what is an unnatural process.

[The Proposer]

youll have to refer to stage two,to present a beleivable alternative to an intelligent ultimate source,we could assume that the initial univers developed from a single particle of an hydrogen atom,but something must have happened to get the process underway,like the wind creating sand dunes the energy require is traced back to the sun and atoms,who controls and utilises this energy who parcels it in atomic bundles,who undoos the parcels and doles them out uniformely,all this maybe a preset universal pattern,but how was it preset and determined,how do you theorise this pattern has occured,can an alternative to intelligent design be put forward ,if so what is it.

[PsychicPenguin]

What I meant with natural processes is something that just happened, without a conscious creator.

Yes you can be a worker in a factory making buckets, but again you can only use analogy to explain an established conclusion, not to draw a conclusion. And even in this case, the ultimate designer does not design the sandcastle. He/she just designed the factory line to produce buckets and doesn't care how people are going to use the product.

[The Proposer]

so how did it just happen?

i was refering to the design of the mold(the bucket),altho the designer of the bucket didnt have a direct hands on approach at creating the actual sandcastle,he owns the patent on the nold and its possible is name is stamped on the bottom of the bucket and would be evident in every re4produced design,also regarding an ultimate creator he would have designed and produced the silica molecules of the sand which would have come about by the narural processes he created.

Edited April 24, 2004 by Magikman

[The Proposer]

also regarding the mold of individual species this is predestined,altho i presume flaws can occur,this may be due to us not being aware of the correct rules,eg in a factory correct rules and regs should be followed in maintaining the running of a production line otherwise faults occur.these faults are usually corrected tho,but sometimes new ideas can occur by mistakes happening,leading to a better bucket,but not a spade in this particular factory,as it is a bucket factory only.

maybe this anology is drawing towards the male and female aspects of the species.

[Seraphina]

You keep using analogies as though they're some kind of carbon proof of your theory...however, as Mr Penguin keeps trying to explain to you, an analogy is a method of simplifying a theory for the understanding of others, not as a means of proving it.

The fact that a bucket on an assembly line was designed by someone does not prove the universe was/ Nor does it even suggest so This ridiculous use of unrelated objects and situations as though they are hard evidence does very little to make your ideas anything more than an assumption.

Unless you've got anything more than little analogies stashed away there, then you're not getting anywhere...so far, I've seen no evidence or logic whatsoever from you, only a ridiculous and naive concept that "this = therefore", showing an absolute disregard for either evidence or common sense.

[PsychicPenguin]

Proposer, this argument is going in circle. You are keep talking about the ultimate designer of everything. There is no such indication that such a thing exists. The fact that we are here is NOT an evidence of a conscious creator.

Can an unconscious entity created something? YES! Wind is an unconscious entity. A bucket is an unconscious entity. This is a fact that you should acknowledge otherwise i can assume that you are a very ignorant person and there is no point in arguing with you.

Now as we have that matter set, we have a hypothetical problem of the ultimate cause beyond the child and the wind. Now, with both conscious entity (eg: a child) and an unconscious entity (eg: wind) are capable of creating something, we have absolutely NO CLUE wether or not the ultimate cause is a conscious entity.

Now, may I ask you, do you think that the ultimate cause has some kind of consciousness and intelligence? If so, why?

[The Proposer]

my answer is that God created things,although I do not know where the other point of veiw is,or what there is to back it up,how did the things i have mentioned come into being?

[The Proposer]

just because an item has no conciousness doesnt mean it was not created,does a car with a driver have conciousness,yes.the driver is the controller of the vehicle.

[PsychicPenguin]

my answer is that God created things,although I do not know where the other point of veiw is,or what there is to back it up,how did the things i have mentioned come into being?

If you want to propose that God created things, you have the burden of proof to show that God exists. Those who propose that nature created things also have the burden of proof to show that it is possible. It is all the lab experiments are all about. Based on our current knowledge, there is no indication whatsoever to conclude that God created everything (or God didn't create anything).

just because an item has no conciousness doesnt mean it was not created,

and it doesn't mean that it was created.

does a car with a driver have conciousness,yes.the driver is the controller of the vehicle.

No more totally unrelated analogies please...

[Seraphina]

my answer is that God created things,although I do not know where the other point of veiw is,or what there is to back it up,how did the things i have mentioned come into being?

How unusual then, that you chose to call this thread "proving the obvious" As this is neither obvious, nor have you proven it

[The Proposer]

questions.

is there a magnet behind the paper?

is the wind an independent disembodied force?

I have been accused of being an ignoramous and not using common sense by the unsubstantiated theory briggade,of course no proof is put forward to make these labels stick.

i accuse those people of slander and name calling when backed into a corner when losing an argument,the proof being in their last few posts.

[The Proposer]

You keep using analogies as though they're some kind of carbon proof of your theory...however, as Mr Penguin keeps trying to explain to you, an analogy is a method of simplifying a theory for the understanding of others, not as a means of proving it.

The fact that a bucket on an assembly line was designed by someone does not prove the universe was/ Nor does it even suggest so This ridiculous use of unrelated objects and situations as though they are hard evidence does very little to make your ideas anything more than an assumption.

Unless you've got anything more than little analogies stashed away there, then you're not getting anywhere...so far, I've seen no evidence or logic whatsoever from you, only a ridiculous and naive concept that "this = therefore", showing an absolute disregard for either evidence or common sense.

could you provide a simple anology of any other theory regarding the created universe?

you cant just exclaim Nature did it,that is less than me saying God did it,I would say God did it using nature,the laws of and the physics of nature are designed and implemented by God.

remember that bit,people assert ,Randomness,Nature etc created things do you deny that these things are less likely than an intelligent creator?

how did these things create magnetic forces,energy for example,The Vedas describe God creating,but where are the Ideas on the other things creating independently?

[The Proposer]

ive noticed magicman has closed my new thread also labelling me inept without justification,I have given far more common sense arguments for there pointing to a creator existing through my anologies than anyone has given for the opposite,if you really wanna worship the penguin,go back through this and the evolution thread,and on a points scoring system see where i have defeated his faulty Ideas,he may give the impression of winning an argument but look back at facts,if you still wanna be cheated then by all means worship the feathered one,theres nowt I can do further to help,exept maybe invest in fish.

[Seraphina]

could you provide a simple anology of any other theory regarding the created universe?

I probably could...however, are you even reading what we're saying anymore? For the final time, I'm going to say it more slowly....analogies don't prove a thing, they're a way of simplifying something to explain them in layman's terms.

The fact that you endlessly explain things in analogies suggests less that your arguement is a strong one, and more that you're forced to do so, because you lack even the faintest glimmer of actual evidence.

you cant just exclaim Nature did it,that is less than me saying God did it,I would say God did it using nature,the laws of and the physics of nature are designed and implemented by God.

We don't just "exclaim nature did it" We come to this conclusion by looking at factors that exist within nature; such as natural selection, genetic inheritance, selective breeding, competition, competative exclusion, adaptation, and any number of other actual, tangable forces of change, and draw our conclusions from that.

God, who you so love you back, doesn't exist in any scientific or logical terms. There has never been even a scrap of evidence to suggest he does, and as I've stated, using him as the ultimate creator of your theory ensures that everything you say is nothing but an assumption built on the back of another. The fact you can claim "god created everything", when God is, by it's very nature, utterly illogical, is a more likely arguement than natural evolution, is actually rather laughable, and I'm losing more and more confidence in your ability to make a decent arguement.

remember that bit,people assert ,Randomness,Nature etc created things do you deny that these things are less likely than an intelligent creator?

There's no "denying" about it; the likelyhood of a creator is so miniscule, it's not even brought into consideration in scientific theory anymore. While it's true we're not in the position to disprove God's existance, we've already discovered so much evidence that contradicts creationism in general, that the likelyhood of him being out there is shrinking on a practically yearly basis.

Well...at least, it is for people who actually know what evidence is

how did these things create magnetic forces,energy for example,The Vedas describe God creating,but where are the Ideas on the other things creating independently?

I'm sorry, but do you even know anything about the theory of evolution? Abiogenesis? I think you'll find there are a great many credible ideas for how things came into existance without the benefit of god...and hey, what do you know, unlike the Vedas, they actually have evidence to back themselves up! What do you know, we've even made some of them happen in a lab!

he may give the impression of winning an argument but look back at facts

If you're basing who's going to win the arguement on facts, then it won't take long to tally the scores You haven't presented any yet.

But, as you love analogies, here's one for you...

Imagine, if you will, a chicken, waving around what appears to be a paint brush, and insisting over and over that the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, because a book (or rather, one of the many thousands upon thousands of flawed interpretations of a book) told him too.

When suddenly, along comes a beautiful (albiet pink haired) young woman, who extends her hand to him, attempting to bring him up to speed on what's actually going on, by showing him evidence, and structured arguements....but the chicken refused her aid, and clutched his book fiercly. You see, by now, the Chicken had grown so comfortable in his own little world, that common sense, logic, evidence, and even the fact that it could plainly be seen that his arguements were being blasted into the nether by the cute young girl, could no longer sway him.

You...*points a trembling finger*...are one of the cunningly veiled characters in that story Mr Proposer. I hope...I really do...that my analogy was simple enough for you to understand. Currently, I'm not sure there is any explanation or comparrison on the face of the earth that is...quite...that...simple.

[The Proposer]

yes lets look at your analogy,the chicken is misled into believing the earth is flat along comes another mis led entity with a better sounding Idea,but us two being observers of this event are able to realise that both entities exist and are performing a silly dance based on their misconceptions,we are in effect playing God.

yes i do read all you put,hoping for something,but remember all you said in your last post werebased on items without a start point,considering the wind,it has not just occured randomly ,some force as ro instigate it,please tell me (slowly if u like)that you understand occurences have to be instigated by a force.

[Seraphina]

that you understand occurences have to be instigated by a force.

Yes, yes I'm perfectly aware that every transaction in the universe requires energy However, I fail to see why you regard this as proof of some kind of conscious force directing this energy?

The fact that you think there needs to be a conscious entity at the helm, suggests less that you're thinking logically, and more that you lack an understanding of the fundamentals of energy transfers.

Most of the forces you seem to obsess over, for example, are caused by the gravitational forces at work on our own planet, or the pull of the moon. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with it

Why don't you instead, and please, without using another silly analogy, explain to me why you believe everything must be directed by an intelligent force, despite that intelligent force revealing absolutely no evidence whatsover of its existance? I believe Mr Penguin challenged you to do so earlier, but you skirted the issue.

[The Proposer]

I probably could...however, are you even reading what we're saying anymore? For the final time, I'm going to say it more slowly....analogies don't prove a thing, they're a way of simplifying something to explain them in layman's terms.

******************then it would be helpful to me and others if you could simplify your view.*****************

The fact that you endlessly explain things in analogies suggests less that your arguement is a strong one, and more that you're forced to do so, because you lack even the faintest glimmer of actual evidence.

*******i,ll concede to you there,ideally i should be reffering you to quotes from the correct interpretation of the Vedas if you really want 100% correct answers search them out on web,Srila Prabhupadas translations and type in specific topic such as "evolution" .*********

We don't just "exclaim nature did it" We come to this conclusion by looking at factors that exist within nature; such as natural selection, genetic inheritance, selective breeding, competition, competative exclusion, adaptation, and any number of other actual, tangable forces of change, and draw our conclusions from that.

[/quoute] ******you state that nature didnt do it then break nature down into parts which did it,i could say the supreme God didnt do it but four lesser Gods did it******

God, who you so love you back, doesn't exist in any scientific or logical terms. There has never been even a scrap of evidence to suggest he does, and as I've stated, using him as the ultimate creator of your theory ensures that everything you say is nothing but an assumption built on the back of another. The fact you can claim "god created everything", when God is, by it's very nature, utterly illogical, is a more likely arguement than natural evolution, is actually rather laughable, and I'm losing more and more confidence in your ability to make a decent arguement.

********this can relate to the dancing chicken and pinky hair one has a basic nisconception the other has built up a whole belief system on the basic misconception,they have ignored nunerous eyewitness accounts of the creator and his acts,they have ignored multitude of arguments ,they have ignored the obvious because they are sentementally attatched to their pet incorrect theories.*********

There's no "denying" about it; the likelyhood of a creator is so miniscule, it's not even brought into consideration in scientific theory anymore. While it's true we're not in the position to disprove God's existance, we've already discovered so much evidence that contradicts creationism in general, that the likelyhood of him being out there is shrinking on a practically yearly basis.

Well...at least, it is for people who actually know what evidence is

****so this evidence is like the wind just appearing without an instigating force,pet theories again,this isnt eviidence.*****

I'm sorry, but do you even know anything about the theory of evolution? Abiogenesis? I think you'll find there are a great many credible ideas for how things came into existance without the benefit of god...and hey, what do you know, unlike the Vedas, they actually have evidence to back themselves up! What do you know, we've even made some of them happen in a lab!

****again we have so called evidence,which is not evidence but a blind belief that things just exist without a traceable backing force.******

If you're basing who's going to win the arguement on facts, then it won't take long to tally the scores You haven't presented any yet.

But, as you love analogies, here's one for you...

Imagine, if you will, a chicken, waving around what appears to be a paint brush, and insisting over and over that the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, because a book (or rather, one of the many thousands upon thousands of flawed interpretations of a book) told him too.

When suddenly, along comes a beautiful (albiet pink haired) young woman, who extends her hand to him, attempting to bring him up to speed on what's actually going on, by showing him evidence, and structured arguements....but the chicken refused her aid, and clutched his book fiercly. You see, by now, the Chicken had grown so comfortable in his own little world, that common sense, logic, evidence, and even the fact that it could plainly be seen that his arguements were being blasted into the nether by the cute young girl, could no longer sway him.

**** i would label the chicken "Lesser Fool"****

You...*points a trembling finger*...are one of the cunningly veiled characters in that story Mr Proposer. I hope...I really do...that my analogy was simple enough for you to understand. Currently, I'm not sure there is any explanation or comparrison on the face of the earth that is...quite...that...simple.

******

so now you must tell me your story

oh pink haired one

from the beggining if you please

dont worry which came first

me or the egg

we both exist ,today ,you see

how did we arrive at this place

dancing the dance

a foul and paltry dance

with no advancement offered

what is the order of the pecking

is it faulty theorys we are wrecking

is it not real corn im eating?

is that your natural colour

or are you cheating.

I have a vital force to dance this dance

and so do you

an energy that exists

here and now

tis the instigator

of the force which i point you to.

a simple thing

thats all.*******

damnation, im not used to the quote facilites on here yet,my replies are above within the asterisks.

[The Proposer]

regarding your last post ,yes its obvious otherwise the universe would consist of multitude of random explosions,with no form the fact that it as form permeating it points to a controller and creator,atomc bundles,planets,planetary systems,galaxies,life forms etc would not exist,dont you understand this if you are tracing it back to a force then that force has to act on something,or that something must be formed by a force,energy is needed to enable us to witness the effects of gravity,personally i think gravity as never been aknowleged as a fundamental force,it is another of our assumptions that it is.

[PsychicPenguin]

Imagine, if you will, a chicken, waving around what appears to be a paint brush, and insisting over and over that the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, because a book (or rather, one of the many thousands upon thousands of flawed interpretations of a book) told him too.

When suddenly, along comes a beautiful (albiet pink haired) young woman, who extends her hand to him, attempting to bring him up to speed on what's actually going on, by showing him evidence, and structured arguements....but the chicken refused her aid, and clutched his book fiercly. You see, by now, the Chicken had grown so comfortable in his own little world, that common sense, logic, evidence, and even the fact that it could plainly be seen that his arguements were being blasted into the nether by the cute young girl, could no longer sway him.

LOL Seraphina

[PsychicPenguin]

Why don't you instead, and please, without using another silly analogy, explain to me why you believe everything must be directed by an intelligent force, despite that intelligent force revealing absolutely no evidence whatsover of its existance?

I believe i haven't read any answer for this one ...

[chico del nacho]

Imagine, if you will, a chicken, waving around what appears to be a paint brush, and insisting over and over that the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, because a book (or rather, one of the many thousands upon thousands of flawed interpretations of a book) told him too.

When suddenly, along comes a beautiful (albiet pink haired) young woman, who extends her hand to him, attempting to bring him up to speed on what's actually going on, by showing him evidence, and structured arguements....but the chicken refused her aid, and clutched his book fiercly. You see, by now, the Chicken had grown so comfortable in his own little world, that common sense, logic, evidence, and even the fact that it could plainly be seen that his arguements were being blasted into the nether by the cute young girl, could no longer sway him.

that has changed my life. praise odin!

so there i was, 30,000 feet straight up in a field of frozen yo-yos, then the string broke. i didn't falter. just kept on going man, cause i knew. i knew nirvana was straight around the corner. turned the corner and ran smack into betty crocker, she was runnina cross the sky yellin "you never outgrow your need for milk." i looked at her and said, "baby...you're somethin else."

[Magikman]

Nor will you, anytime soon. As the initiator is no longer welcome here, there's little point in leaving this open.

Magikman