In one way or another, it is likely that a theist will bring up design as evidence for the existence of a god. After all, design means a designer, does it not? Yes and no. The answer is yes, but to all the implications the answer is no. Yes, design does need a designer. But it’s not that easy to show design and non-intelligent processes can be designers. Erosion designed the Grand Canyon and beaches. Embryology designs trees from seeds. Deposition (and some fancy chemical displacement) designs most beautiful geology.
As a side note, I am going to talk from the viewpoint that God is real for ease of writing (and so, reading). When I say things like “you need to know the mind of God” I don’t mean to suggest that God is real, I simply mean that is a necessary to be able to know His mind.
When a theist talks about design, we need to be clear about what they’re talking about. They are talking about the appearance of design to meet an end or purpose. So we need to be very clear on the words “purpose” and “appearance”. Purpose first.
Something has a purpose if it can be said to have succeeded in some way. Therefore, purpose very much depends on perspective. From an evolutionary point of view, a biological thing can be said to succeed when it reproduces, its purpose is to reproduce. More importantly, a biological system can be said to be poorly designed (by evolutionary criteria), like the infertile Mule stallion. This is important, because to understand what the purpose of a thing is you must know the criteria. In cases where theists bring up teleology (the idea of purpose) as evidence for God, regardless of whether they are aware of it, they are claiming to know the purpose of the “designed” thing. They are claiming to know the purpose of the universe and of life. That means that God does not work in such mysterious ways; some people claim to know His mind.
The appearance of design is also interesting. Appearance is a subjective conclusion. It is most likely based on evaluating how a thing’s features allow it to reach its purpose. Therefore, before you can talk about the appearance of design you must know the purpose it has and the criteria by which it will do those things. In the is-there-a-god debate, the person claiming that something is designed they must first know the purpose of that thing (which means knowing the mind of God). You, second, must have a reliable way of evaluating the features that you see.
This is particularly interesting in biology (and evolution) when religious people claim that the elegance we see in biology looks like design. They talk about the efficiency with which the eye can see and wings can fly and teeth can chew etc. They talk about all this with the implicit suggestion that they know the purpose (and therefore the mind of God). The rebuttals are well-known: the laryngeal nerve, wisdom teeth, the blind spot of the human eye, sciatica, the vestigial pelvis in whales, the tonsils, the appendix. Some other examples, like the huge atomic mass of haemoglobin, are less well known—but when humans can make it six times more efficient and discriminate against the carbon monoxide toxin you have to consider that if it is designed, it’s inefficient.
Out of biology and into cosmogony the question is different. Yes, the criteria still need to be established. That means questioning what God intended needs to be answered. That means someone has to claim the mind of God is knowable. The traditional back-and-forth about how brilliant is Earth? and Yeah, fantastic. I’m thinking of moving in with penguins and my brother is living with sperm whales. No, wait—that’s right—Earth will kill us! before someone brings up the universal constants. These are mathematical constants that, if changed may stop the universe. Our perception of purpose here comes from the odds against the exact value of the constant we have. Before anyone can assert design here they have to show that these values could be different. They also have to show that there are not enough universes for every possible value to be realised in at least one of them.
That is a lot of footwork for the theist to make sense of the argument that there is design therefore there is an intelligent designer. But there is a bigger issue: knowing the mind of God to establish a purpose so that you can show design so that you can argue a designer begs the question; you have to assume God to know His mind. Step one in proving God should not be assuming He is real.
Categories: Atheism
Enquiries on Atheism 
Reblogged this on Allallt in discussion.
Oh, I like this one very much!
It does seem to be a conversation stopper for ID’ers when you ask them to produce another universe against which we can compare ours. Another highly effective conversation killer is the Great Oxygen Catastrophe 2.4 billion years ago.
There is a certain arrogance assuming that the world is comfortable ‘now’. It certainly wasn’t always.
…and there never was an “always.” Without question the design argument is the most childish and outlandish of all the see-god-does-exist arguments. I don’t like calling theists delusional, but in this instance it does apply. One must simply be purposefully denying/ignoring reality to hold such an outrageous notion.
You said “it’s not that easy to show design and non-intelligent processes can be designers”
I need to agree on the assumption and it true.
But I need to disagree with the statement “you need to know the mind of God”.
Who ever give such non-sense statement as per above are require to think about their thought again and again. There was no-way people can understand the God’s mind.
Naturally, human can only assume based on their observation, reading, and learning, etc. Purpose is important, but it not necessary THE MOST important aspect to understand nature.
Just learn the nature and use it wisely. Why need to burden the head with such sophisticated philosophy that everyone know they do not have a capability to think it.
BIG PURPOSE – Why God create water – To drink, a source of life, etc.
SMALL PURPOSE – but if people ask: Why God create male to have nipple? or secular – Why male need nipple? Not everyone can answer unless he or she have a depth study on the matter.
Intelligent – having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
It not about showing a purpose.
If a someone ask designer to what purpose of design a designer will explain the fundamental idea of the design. To request a details of the design, designer may tell you “Go back to university and take a degree in design”. Common sense…
To assume God made water for us to drink is to assume you know the mind of God. Especially when I then ask why most of the water on Earth is undrinkable salt water and a lot more of it is locked away in ice sheets. I can then ask why huge volumes of water exist off of the Earth… are we meant to drink that too? To assume you know that water was made -because- we are meant to drink it, from the tiny % of the water that is actually drinkable, does assume you knew what God wants.
God-based purpose does require you to assume you know the mind of God.
I actually agree with you that you can’t know the mind of God. Therefore you cannot know design purpose. Therefore you cannot know whether something -looks- designed. Therefore people cannot use design as evidence for God.
Water for drink…
If you talking about salt water, and I talk about drinking water. Then, we talking about two different thing. then we need to clarify the definition of water before discussing about a purpose. Then, I will go to depth, talking about “alkaline water”, later you assume the ph is 14 which also extremely alkaline, but I am talking about ph 8.
Then, we will have never ending argument. Sure, it was a tiring process.
As we talk about water, the usage of water is a lot. When I write about drinking, I assume that people can understand a common usage of water i.e drink. I don’t expect to write about other combination of H2O with other element, or other characteristic.
If we talk about water (I try to details here – pure water or water with less than 1% other element), there are many characteristic. Pure water and the combination of heat, pressure just enough to make you dizzy with calculation and the characteristic such ice, fluids, gases.
A mechanical engineering syllabus in all over the world commonly learn from about 4 separate classes teach about hydraulic from Fundamental of Fluids, Mechanic of Fluids, Dynamics of Fluids, (elective) Advance of Fluids. If you really want to corner me with such lowly method by asking ” I can then ask why huge volumes of water exist off of the Earth… are we meant to drink that too?”
I would like to tell you, please don’t do that…
What I want to explain is.
I need to understand the basic purpose, not a depth details view point.
Example, a car user need to understand a car is made for driving and bring people from place to place. A car user not necessary require to understand what the piston material, and how the body being made. To understand it was a surplus knowledge, but it not a necessity.
Still, the design of a car are easily understandable that there are architect and engineer who design the car. The one who want to know everything are expecting the want to become an engineer.
If I translate this concept to concept of design and God. It still understandable. Therefore your conclusion ” Therefore people cannot use design as evidence for God.” is void.
Then define god,please.
Once we can all agree on a definition of this deity/creator then the discussion can move forward.
Hi Arkenaten,
My definition of God are constant and consistent, as you and I are long time “buddy”. I don’t require to explain every time I meet you.
In context it might be helpful, especially for others on this thread.
A brief summary should suffice.
God is Creator and Most Intelligent.
And how do you know this?
What is your source for this information?
In this world/universe there 2 possibility of existing of the universe (1) The universe are reproduce infinitely or (2) there are a Creator that create the world who is infinite.
This is my definition from no (2) – God The Creator.
The Most Intellectual mean there are no other being can pass the intellectual of God.
the source:
1) God The Creator – From Law of Conservation of Energy – Energy Cannot Naturally Be Created or Destroyed. Therefore, the concept of infinite is logic and mathematically proved. It was 2 logic possibility which I said above. I choose no 2.
2) The Most Intellectual – The design itself have a probability, complex and unimaginable. What “human” do is a reverse engineering from observation of nature, not a directly pure knowledge or design. Therefore, even human are intellectual, the origin of the knowledge is much more intellect that reverse engineering knowledge.
Is it answering the question?
You are taking an unknown and positing a deity in the space marked ”Blank”.
This is disingenuous.
Rather say, Ï don’t know.”
This at least is honest.
You mention – This is disingenuous.
Can you explain which statement is disingenuous? May be I can clarify further?
dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/Submit
adjective
1.
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
You posit a god as a Creator.
This is disingenuous.
Even, my choose (1) “the universe are reproduce infinitely”, I still can make an assumption that “There was a Being that infinite that controlling the universe”. So both conclusion can be linked to the Creator.
You called me “posit”- in dealing with option, a person must make a decision. A person must made a decision based on their intellectual, experience, history or what ever reason, etc. As I refer to my hypothesis, both conclusion can be refer back to position of “God” and it valid.
I don’t know you are just a plain stupid or pretend to be stupid. You ask me, I politely ask for not to answered it, and when I answered, you attack me on personal basis. Actually, I already can read you move on arguing, you only have few readable method, and it was too naive. You want to counter me with some “boxing clinch”, it was desperate move. Sure, it was a boring debate. This is the best counter you can give back to me by replying “This is disingenuous”. Like a kindergarten student fight…
If you notice (or other Atheist colleague) do notice, your style are resemble “Christian Evangelist”. So, it was too stupid… Please don’t reply back to me.
You said water was made for drinking. I said most of the water is undrinkable.
Agreed.
Then you tried to define water as only water that is drinkable… excluding most of the water on the planet.
The definition is based on literacy or common usage. It always my style in literacy to use something that available and reachable with my boundary. Unfortunate, in this view, water that reachable in my boundary is drinking water. Even though I also can use sanitary water, drain water, in this view, I choose drinking water.
Hate to explain this…
But if you want to talk about bigger concept. I would like to explain that water (sea or river) is medium of living, i.e a place of living of billion of sea creature. Even thought, we don’t drink this water, there are many others creature that use this water to drink. It not necessary just because we can not drink it, other creature can not “drink” it.
Note: I use word “fish drink” because I can not find the correct word, may be consume is better.
In this world, we are not living alone, there are many others creature living with us, what we don’t need are necessity for their living.
Water in form of gases is a medium to balance of air that breath i.e humidity, are calculated based on wet bulb temperature (relative humidity). If not the air is too dry or too damp.
example:
Even thought some country are prefer a comfort level humidity as 25~60 RH i.e your country because the temperature in Europe is much more lower compare tropical country such Malaysia
In my country where the temperature is much higher 32~34 deg C, 25~60RM is too dry, where I prefer 65~75RH.
So, to cross linked the concept and fundamental without understand the overall concept is wrong and unacceptable even in the name of science.
How do you get from here to “water is designed”?
Based on idea above, The universe is created by God, world is a part of universe, water is a part of world.
It just like asking me – How do get from here to “the bolt is designed”? Of course, if the car is there, and bolt is a part of car. Automatically, bolt are also being designed.and fabricated.
Even thought, I explain about bolt and nut, (a part of system), it not necessary I neglected the idea of whole system itself, i.e car. Bolt have a different size and length, each both have different characteristic, and usage.
So, it not so hard to understand it. This main fundamental of this principles is still “The universe is created by God”. That why, from my understanding, establishment of fundamental concept is crucial to make sure that the idea, concept. fundamental, principles are not scatter away.
We know nuts and bolts are designed because we contrast them against nature,because we know their purpose, because we know people design them…
We can’t contrast the universe against nature because it is nature, we don’t know the purpose of nature because we don’t know the mind of the designer and we don’t know whether it was designed. You’re missing the point of my post: to claim design you need to posit a purpose; to know the purpose you must know the designer. You don’t.
Not everyone know about bolts and nut. If you refer to Shingley’s Mechanical Design, bolt characteristic are based on threat, length, material and diameter. All combination have different usage. We may understand bolt and are use to tighten something (common rules), but we don’t necessary understand the overall concept of its unless we learn its, i.e fabrication, manufacturing, material,etc.
Stick to objective – To understand car. Bolt is just a part that are most simple part inside the car.
In this idea, we can understand the purpose briefly and not details… To understand details, a lot of reverse engineering and observation are required which not everyone does it.
In this idea, I really need emphasize the a user are not necessary understand the overall concept of “A car”. A user are required to know about a car brand and model, and how to maintain it, as per user’s manual. To have more knowledge is always better and preferable, but it not a must…
I am not missing with your point – I disagree with your point.
Intelligent – having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level. This the definition that I use which I take from Oxford dictionary.
Even for the bolt, even it was a simple design, it require about 1 year to understand overall concept of its, from basic of drawing, material, types, calculation, fabrication, etc. I not so simple.. as tighten between 2 thing. Just to know few type of bolt, it not make people an expert.
But if we don’t have a knowledge of such simple thing as bolt(example only), how going to discuss about a car itself?
How good the design of car, if let say we don’t have a knowledge to appreciate a thing, how we going to appreciate it?
It just like buying racing car such Porsche GT and bring the car into rainforest 4WD competition. The car is stuck, and blaming the car for not performing. A clever people will change the car to 4WD such Mitsubishi Pajero, a stupid people will blame the car.
In this case, it always about personal choice. A great car with stupid driver will lead to destruction. A good driver with good car in wrong competition will lead to limitation and hard work. Know our limit…
I don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m going to try for a few summaries, can you tell me if any of them represent your view:
(1) It is legitimate to conclude a thing is designed by an intelligence with intent simply by subjective appearance.
(2) There are realistic and objective criteria by which we can tell an intelligence thing has designed something with intent. Both man-made and natural things have these criteria.
(3) The reason it is clear something in nature is designed by an intelligence with intent is completely different from telling whether something is man made.
If you do pick any of these options, please elaborate.
Else, give an equally brief claim followed by substantiation (which can be as long and complicated as you like)
1) The product of intelligent are only is appreciate by the one who understand and acknowledge the beauty of the product. To understand the beauty of the product, people must at least know the brief knowledge about it. Some people appreciate things based on appearance, usage, usefulness, application, arts, taste, and of course the ultimate appreciation based depth study. Different people have different view in same product depend on education, age, social status, etc.
2) Therefore, the product of intelligent are not necessary can be understand by everyone. Any everyone is not necessary required to understand all part of knowledge. In easy word, not everyone is capable to understand the depth of certain knowledge. This is where the scholar are important so the public’s head are not burden with complexity of knowledge and everyone can work based on their expertise.
3) In this idea, the scholar from university, or professional or intellectual are require to provide a very solid fundamental BUT an understandable concept for public to understand it briefly (refer no1). Even thought, there is a problem of “irrational” scholar in this matter or the intellectual who think oddly or unorthodox or radically (negative word) or “think out of the box” (positively word). Sometime this view being called “same coin with different side”.
4) So, in this view, every have a basic knowledge to differentiate between wrong and right and at the same time can monitor the scholar who is cunning enough to fool the public. This is the check and balance between public and scholar. Therefore, a common fundamental are very important to be discuss as this will be a policy of everyone who inherit a same thought.
To answering you question.
Based on my religion view (based on 2:30), certain things are unknown even we try to search it. Based on the subjective appearance of human compare to others living i.e mind. We have capability of thinking and free wills. Human have capability to govern the earth based on their wisdom and they also have capability to destroy it. So, in the view of religion, we only discuss things that are within our knowledge and wisdom of individual or group of people. Some of the purpose is known, some of it is unknown. When dealing with unknown knowledge, it is important to keep the idea of positive thinking to future generation so they can appreciate and discover a new thing.
If we start something negative, i.e “most of sea water is useless because it cannot be drink”. We already persevering the method of thinking negatively for future generation. This is anti-modernization and anti-enlightenment unconsciously.
Greetings. I’d like to inform you all that Chris Langan (high genius of 200+ IQ) has mathematically proven God exists in his CTMU (short for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). The theory is a logical tautology (i.e., an unconditional truth); this eliminates any exclusively-atheistic approach to reality. I’m even running a blog on it. Additionally, the theory is of post-Aristotelian intellectual evolution – keep in mind we haven’t had a major advancement in logic like this for over 2000 years (since Aristotle). If you would like to know more about the valid, mathematical and scientific definition of God I recommend reading Chris Langan’s CTMU paper available online.
I’ll look it up.
(There is a valid mathematical argument that i, the square root of 1, exists.)
So far, I’ve only be able to understand summaries of the argument. If you have an accessible reference, that would be really useful. The summaries have glaring errors in them and if they accurately represent the actual argument then the argument is terrible.
Definitely; here’s a partial list of online references –
http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm
http://megasociety.org/noesis/45/index.html
http://ctmu.net/
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html
(I have other references as well; his greatest explanation is his Cheating the Millennium tractate – which I have a PDF of, but I can’t distribute it online.)
what god is being proven? I don’t even have to read all the proofs if god must be proved mathematically. It is all hogwash, sorry!
I think I’ve figured the flaw in the maths anyway. It makes the assumption that the universe is “conscious” because quantum mechanics has syntax (which it doesn’t). It then assumes that that consciousness is analogous to human consciousness. It also assumes that human consciousness isn’t mechanical at bottom.
I’m waiting for the ‘oh, you think you can prove a man with an IQ of 200 wrong?’ And the answer is yes. It is difficult to best a man with an IQ of 200, but if a problem has bested the man, then pointing it out is actually pretty easy.
I think I’ve figured the flaw in the argument. It makes the following assumption:
(1) That quantum mechanics has syntax
(2) That this syntax gives the universe consciousness.
(3) This consciousness is consciousness in the same way human consciousness is consciousness.
(4) Consciousness is not mechanical at bottom.
I suspect you doubt that an internet blogger can best a man with an IQ of 200. Perhaps you’re right. But I am not besting a man with an IQ of 200, I am pointing out that a certain problem has bested the man.
(In case you’re wondering, if you were to accept Langan’s model you would be stuck at pantheism — and you’d have a problem of showing your god to have any freewill. Langan’s argument simply defines complexity as consciousness and that complexity is deterministic at bottom… I’m not sure where the room for God is in that.)
Invalid. The argument of the CTMU is that a deterministic/non-deterministic universe boils down to an infinite ectomorphic tower of turtle on turtle with no ultimate origin of existence (and hence the inconsistency of set theory). Attempt to produce a universal manifold using “modern” mathematics that is capable of modeling processes culminating in it’s own existence and continuity, and you end in error, because you result with something called a “singularity”(!). I’m sorry, but self-determinism is the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality due to the fact that only it can account for it’s own existence (there is simply nothing external to reality to provide the possibility of existence; thence it’s analytic self-containment); so there is either nothing, or something with greater expressive capacity not yet detected by “standard” science…hello CTMU, and hello SCSPL! I’d like to point out that Langan’s model does not rely on pantheism; that is, pantheism is pluralistic and cannot stand alone as reality’s syntax (but you would have guessed this if you looked at the proof of metaphysical uniqueness); the CTMU implies something called “holopantheism”, which is at once monic (nonpluralistic) and holistic (the conditions of existence embody the manifold). Indeed, in a deterministic/non-deterministic, there is no room for free will (as everything is already pre-determined by deterministic laws); self-determinism is the only way something like religion and free will can logically exist. Thankfully, a self-deterministic reality is 100% possible; so if reality exists at all, it must be self-deterministic. Again, if you really looked at my references, you would have come to this conclusion on your own. Hopefully you can someday come to appreciate the significance of the theory (or you shall remain in an artificial, pseudo-tautological model of reality). – But then again, a transducer which can’t recognize the errors it generates is doomed to error forever.
Literally no things you just said makes sense.
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________
Nope. The most you can say is it doesn’t make sense to *you*.
Then don’t you think you should take the time and make the effort to explain it properly rather than coming across as a smug smartalec?
Just a thought.
What Ark said…
It’s little things:
(1) What does “Self determined” even mean?
(a) How on earth did you get to “intelligence” from there?
(2) Why are you talking about freewill like you’ve established it even exists?
…
I could go on, but I imagine you’ve had this conversation before, so you know the bits that trip people up.
I’ll reply, since you might take the time to apprehend; the theory is massive and I don’t believe you’ll understand it right away. Self-determinism is simply when an object determines it’s existence for itself (as reality does, because there is nothing external to reality real enough to provide it’s existence; reality must be it’s own origin). I educe “intelligence” because self-determinism=self-configuration=self-actualization=self-recognition=self-awareness=consciousness; a self-configuring, self-processing language (SCSPL) *is* intelligence. I’m talking about freewill because I have established it exists (through advanced logic, namely the CTMU); freewill is isomorphic to self-determinism…you make the choices you do because *you* chose them; the level of freewill you possess is proportional to intelligence. Because we are endomorphic images of the largest mind (God), we can’t “fly” by the power of thought alone – you are corporeally locked into physical reality and are “limited” by deterministic laws (which does not apply to God, as He is the one to set those laws into motion; He retains absolute freedom and monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large) – determinism and non-determinism are mere “aspects” of self-determinism. Notice how I’ve combined the caused and cause into the same thing? – however, beware that if causes cause effects that also cause their causes there’s a paradox…per contra, in the CTMU causes cause their effects in a different “way” than effects cause their causes (we have finally eliminated Cartesian mind-body dualism and replaced it with property-dualism). Just look at your learning ability, for example – that automatically insinuates that you are “self-programming”…perhaps we can give robots consciousness after all – it only requires a learning function (this amounts to true artificial intelligence). If you were to *not* take this worldview, things like “free speech”, and your right to “self-determination” become meaningless…there would be no purpose in life without the CTMU (randomness or determinacy has no goal). I’ll remind you that reality exists because there is nothing external to it depriving it of existence. – It’s especially insidious when atheists believe life amounts to causal randomness and is, as a result, meaningless…however, the CTMU is logically verified due to it’s self-referential, self-proving nature, which is the essential nature of all logical tautologies – and it is the greatest tautology of all; a super-tautology). The CTMU is the most ramified pieces of reasoning you will ever come across. – The theory provides meaning and purpose to life. One of the greatest achievements of the CTMU is that it provides the logical infrastructure necessary for the mathematical proof of the existence of God.
Good grief – please forgive my typographical errors. If you’d like to learn more about how the CTMU is derived from logic and set theory, please visit Chris’s online documents…I can answer more questions, however. Take note how the CTMU explains the bi-directionality of time – *you* recognize/observe (partially control) the past, and the past (e.g., the laws of physics) functions as your state-transition syntax. What you can’t see (future/mind/mathematics) predicatively determines what can see (past/material objects/the physical universe) which topologically determines what you can’t see (it takes time for a photon to travel to your eyes, so you are in fact perceiving the past). – In General Relativity, space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve…These are examples of mutual definition (or causal self-closure). One example of empirical evidence of the CTMU is accelerating cosmic expansion (which actually turns out to be material and temporal contraction due to the ever-increasing informational density of spacetime); as such, the speed of light seems to “slow-down” over time (to maintain physical processes). If the size of a proton shrinks, then time must shrink in accordance so that it takes longer for light to travel across the new diameter of the proton. Cosmic expansion/contraction amounts to spatial expansion qua material/time contraction (another example of mutual definition). What appears as spatial expansion from a local perspective is material and temporal contraction from a global one. But the CTMU does not require empirical evidence to be correct (howbeit it exists in abundance); it can rely on mathematics alone for validation.
The problem with self-determinism is that intelligence requires inputs. So, what determines what an object self-determines?
I’m not being facetious, models like Lawrence Krauss’ Universe from Nothing rely on chance, which doesn’t need an input (given that “nothingness” has the innate property of being unstable). It’s only a hypothesis, but it’s not wrought with infinite regress issues.
The input of a self-deterministic (or intelligent) object is itself (it is also it’s own output); please stop speaking authoritatively on topics you know little about. Reality is completely self-contained – an object self-determines through itself, it determines itself and it determines for itself. E.g., your learning function takes your brain as input, and conditions it through learning (you have taken yourself as input to your own self-processing; your brain is a massively parallel, self-programming computer). That’s why it’s called a self-configuring, self-processing language (as it takes itself as input to it’s own processing). Looking at your comment, you exemplify a model which relies on chance that doesn’t need input – but where does the power of chance come from; alternatively, why is, what you call, “nothing” unstable; after all, nothing should mean…nothing, right? – so yes, you are still left with an infinite-explanatory regress. (I have the hunch that when you say “nothing” your really just pointing to the realm of infinite possibility enabling reality to take any form it chooses due to it’s self-containment and outside zero-constraint.) There must be an explanation for the freedom you encounter in things like non-determinacy. But that’s exactly it – standard science is non-self-explanatory…it can’t account for what it says and nothing can be “validated” within it’s framework (but this all changes when you take a look at something called “logic”); hence the illogical, falsificationist doctrine that has cropped up. As reality is self-deterministic, there is nothing but itself preventing it’s own existence (this is as clear as the nose on your face). Also, the CTMU has already been authenticated; if you think you can “debunk” the theory you really have no clue what your talking about; look at the proof of metaphysical uniqueness and you should have no doubt of the theory’s validity (if you know what a proof entails in mathematics, that is).
I seemed to have erred (typographically) yet again.
^facepalm
At this juncture I’m departing from the conversation.
Can you at least point out why? I’d like to explain further if you’ll permit me the time.
Actually, allow me to account for why I am leaving the conversation:
(1) Brains are not self-determining. There is constant input. They are made via biochemistry. The biochemistry occurs through genetics which in turn comes from an antecedent cause of evolution and parenthood.
(2) You’re telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.
(3) You called modern science illogical and a doctrine, with no substantiation.
(4) You said the CTMU has been authenticated. You haven’t provided a reference for that and you haven’t explained what that means. (After all, logical arguments are meant to be valid, not authentic).
(5) You clearly have never engaged with the question of what nothing is. You can philosophise forever about what you want it to be, but there is only so much we can show is true.
(6) Self-referential set ups are a paradox. If both the input and the output appeared at the same time (because they’re the same thing) you have not explained where the input came from. If you think you have, you have a self-referential paradox (not a self-referential answer).
(7) What freedom are you talking about? Are you talking about statistical data, like quantum mechanics or are you asserting freewill exists?
(8) No, you’re right. There is a philosophy of science that underpins practical and evidential science. You don’t explain how that’s illogical.
(9) Pure logic, without levels of uncertainty, gets you no where.
I’ll diagnose the errors in your argumentation, to clarify my position:
Allallt – “(1) Brains are not self-determining. There is constant input. They are made via biochemistry. The biochemistry occurs through genetics which in turn comes from an antecedent cause of evolution and parenthood.”
Brains are partially self-determining, as that’s what the learning function provides to some degree. There is constant input from the outside for your brain *not* including your learning function; and informational input is merely outside interference (input) for your brain’s sensory “acceptors”. Obviously brains are biological; but you’re not comprehending that your brain’s structure is *partially* self-deterministic – thence, there is “some” outside interference in the form of sensory input. I am starting to believe you think computers can only be mechanical, and not biological – in one sense you’re right; computers are generally considered to be deterministic machines based on the laws of physics.
Allallt – “(2) You’re telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
You said self-determinism has problems associated with it, even though it doesn’t (this can be verified) – please excuse my asperity; I’m only trying to be blunt.
Allallt – “(3) You called modern science illogical and a doctrine, with no substantiation.”
Falsificationism is in fact the standard philosophy of science – and it has no tautological basis (it therefore qualifies as illogical). (I see you pointed this out below.)
Allallt – “(4) You said the CTMU has been authenticated. You haven’t provided a reference for that and you haven’t explained what that means. (After all, logical arguments are meant to be valid, not authentic).”
I did so – i.e., in the comment you never approved. It was: http://megasociety .org/noesis/76/05.htm
(I meant authentic; but I could have also said valid…the theory is in fact tautological.) Still, please take a look at my reference.
Allallt – “(5) You clearly have never engaged with the question of what nothing is. You can philosophise forever about what you want it to be, but there is only so much we can show is true.”
Yes, I have…with the (English) “dictionary”. It says nothing is nonexistence. (Your statement is incongruous since I actually know of such a realm that is identical to “emptiness”, it’s called unbound-telesis or UBT for short.)
Allallt – “(6) Self-referential set ups are a paradox. If both the input and the output appeared at the same time (because they’re the same thing) you have not explained where the input came from. If you think you have, you have a self-referential paradox (not a self-referential answer).”
Hold on – I’ve already explicated that if causes cause their effects in a *different way* than effects cause their causes, they maintain logical consistency despite being reductively the same. This goes for input/output as well…input is the same as output but differs in property (so they’re not identical, but only partially). The input came from itself, the self-deterministic object (it is it’s own input; and it’s own origin). And no, I don’t have a self-referential paradox on my hands, I’ve explained input and output are the “same” but exhibit difference in the form of property-dualism (input and output are mere aspects of the same thing – a self-processor) to maintain logical consistency – thus, reality amounts to a self-resolving paradox. This is the fundamental principle of the CTMU.
Allallt – “(7) What freedom are you talking about? Are you talking about statistical data, like quantum mechanics or are you asserting freewill exists?”
I’m speaking more along the lines of quantum mechanics this time (or just plain non-determinacy, if you prefer).
Allallt – “(8) No, you’re right. There is a philosophy of science that underpins practical and evidential science. You don’t explain how that’s illogical.”
It’s illogical because it ignores pure logic; and I pointed out above that it has no logical basis – so standard science can ultimately explain nothing (at least nothing that makes sense), *because* we have an infinite-explanatory regress…this implies the problem of induction, which has also been resolved in the tautological framework that is the CTMU.
Allallt – “(9) Pure logic, without levels of uncertainty, gets you no where.”
Well, without pure logic, you have nothing to base varying degrees of validity (however, I do maintain that we also need levels of uncertainty – but if you remove pure logic, there can be no “degree” of uncertainty); e.g., many-valued logic is ultimately reducible to basic binary logic. Furthermore, you can’t have specific (uncertain) theories without general (pure) theories – for example, say you were looking for a very “specific” type of medicine – you can’t even begin to look for that medicine without knowing you need medicine in general…so general theories of reality, including pure logic, do have practical importance; they must not be separated from science, which is what’s happening.
Summary: you are leaving the conversation with a multitude of fallacies. Perhaps we could have fixed your errors of comprehension if you had more time? (You have been asking intelligently, after all.)
Now that I’ve provided you with the proof of metaphysical uniqueness, http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm (proof of the CTMU), I think it’s time you changed your blog’s title to something new – atheism has been logically debunked. If you’d like to keep it related to religion, I recommend “Enquiries on Holotheism”. Of course, you can continue your blog the way it is now, if you’d like (and maintain it’s path of illogic, which is probably what you’ll do anyway). (Holotheism := logical theology.)
I find it insolent of you to neglect my replies, even after I caught you in silly errors of comprehension. You must have diagnosticated the futility of arguing with someone with a superior perceptivity of logic than yourself. Further, I have imparted irrefutable proof of God’s actuality, composed by the most intelligent man known to exist. makagutu assessed the validity of the CTMU, without knowing anything about it in advance (and admitting that) – that’s an explicit logical fallacy; and Allallt has been exposed of exhibiting kettle logic. Over all, this blog is a deplorable delineation of truth; and it’s authors are woebegone with failure in the department of evaluative competency. If anyone would like a taste of truth, the CTMU can afford that; and it is Chris Langan’s benefaction to mankind…logic. He has laid the groundwork for post-Aristotelian intellectual evolution, and his successfulness has been gratuitous; the theory is a 2000 year advancement to standard logic. Beyond a shadow of doubt, I have wasted time trying to gain their understanding. – I bid you all adieux.
Brandon, you keep ranting on this blog parroting what you think is a great revolution. I have no contention that Langan is who say he is. I asked in my brief comment that you took issue with which god is being proven and that question you have ignored. Could you be kind as to tell what god has been proven by this great intellect. I would want us to be on the same page, and since I have no belief in gods, I would care for a definition of what your Chris means when he talks about god then and just then I may be interested in reading the drivel. There was once I had a fellow comment on my blog that Godel’s modal logic proved the existence of a god. Whereas the argument looked sound and challenging to disprove, it suffers the same fate as all the arguments that seek to prove god a priori.
If god exists and is acting in the universe and has the powers ascribed to it by believers, there would be no need for apologetics. No need for proofs. It would be self evident. These proofs and arguments are intellectual exercises in formulating coherent arguments but you can’t move from a coherent proof to a god existing. That requires quite a leap. And since you pride yourself as such an intellectual, I thought this should have been obvious or are you only good at parroting?
If the argument helps you with your belief, good for you, if it bolsters your faith in phantoms, more power to you, but you shouldn’t go calling other people names because you have seen a mathematical formula that proves your bit of fairy tale is real and they don’t accept it. That is acting like a child who is hung up because others refused to play with his ball.
@ Brandon ”Super Bot” Clifton
Lol….And with this one sentence you have just flushed your whole argument down the crapper!
You’re obnoxious, and I told you why I wasn’t going to engage with you any further. You didn’t answer my challenges, you merely responded. Not all responses are answers.
I am trying to get to the bottom of what it means to be self-determined, and it simply doesn’t have any meaning. The brain is not a good example, nothing about the brain is self-determining.
You want a response to the CTMU, which is a very big thing. It will take a considerable amount of time to read up on an evaluate it. And yet one day of no reply you declare yourself the winner of the argument. You are constantly making vague accusations without examples for substantiation (like accusing me of “kettle logic” and all the authors of “failure in the department of evaluative competency”.
You also hold up an uneducated man’s IQ score like it’s an authority.
You have failed to explain what the CTMU even is, meaning I have to find my own references. The references you have offered are periphery conversation or inaccessible tripe. Before I even consider going on with the conversation I want you, in your words, to give the argument of God. Key words, that appear meaningless (like self-determined) need to be explained. Awful analogies are not an explanation.
Just in case there’s any confusion,
I seldom respond to ad hominem criticism, nor do I participate in fishing expeditions wherein staw men angle for red herring under the coercive supervision of ax-grinding bellyachers. Please try and do better if you wish to engage with me. And purvey evidence next time you claim the proof is faulty (and if you can’t – that’s no wonder); until then, my argument stands on terra firma.
(Chris Langan is in fact educated; he just never finished collage – just look at his Wikipedia page. IQ implies learning ability, job performance and your capacity to solve complex problems, particularly those including logic; so yes, his intelligence does imply he knows what he’s talking about.)
This isn’t my post but if I was Allalt your ass would be in the Spam Can in a second.
Consider yourself very fortunate he has entertained your drivel for so long.
I was under the impression that your participation here was to present a new theory and help people understand. After all, it IS fairly complicated and if the idea was to help folk understand you have done a pretty shitty job.
You have antagonised and alienated a potential audience who will likely reject out of hand anything further you might want to post here. So all in all you have utterly failed in helping to get your point across.
Congratulations! Don’t you feel like a dick now?
Sorry, I thought blogging was a type of social media. Therefore, when you comport yourself in an obnoxious way I would have thought that pulling you up on it was relevant.
Second of all, provide an argument. Actually provide an argument. Not a title, an argument. One of the first things I asked you to do was present an accessible version of the argument. If you understand it, present it.
Third, what the hell is metaphysical uniqueness?
Lastly, are you of the impression you haven’t been rude and condescending?
@Allalt
Found this on another blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/21/two-for-one-crackpot-physics-a/
I expected a serious, logical intellectual discussion, Allallt (even if it’s highly informal; and if it’s on a blog); in any case, ad hominem is a fake argument against the CTMU, and me (I will not waste time here if all you plan to do is denigrate my posts – and I *definitely* won’t reply to your ditto-heads: they’ve demonstrated they have no real intention of comprehending the CTMU, but instead spend time manufacturing vehement denunciations of me, and the theory; normal people just don’t attack others for no good reason – e.g., like what “Arkenaten” has been exposed of doing). Since you apparently took the time to look at my replies, I’ll explain it in a different light – Argument of the CTMU: (1) Reality is self-contained. (2) Reality is a syndiffeonic relation representing difference in sameness. (3) Reality is reducible to language as it conforms to the algebraic definition of a language.
Reality is self-contained for lack of anything real enough external to it to provide it’s existence; only reality can influence itself – accordingly, anything that supplies reality’s existence must already exist “within” it’s framework (this can be seen another way: every set has a powerset, but reality must contain itself from without – so we must define two senses of containment, one by which reality contains it’s powerset while being contained by it’s powerset in another; and those are senses of containment equivalent to description and topology respectively). Next, any difference relation implies that it’s relands are reductively the same because they reduce to a common reality enabling the distinction. What is more, reality is a language because it consists of: “(1) representations of (object-like) individuals, (space-like) relations and attributes, and (time-like) functions and operations;
(2) a set of “expressions” or perceptual states; and
(3) a syntax consisting of (a) logical and geometric rules of structure, and (b) an inductive- deductive generative grammar identifiable with the laws of state transition.” – Chris Langan
To resolve the paradox of identifying difference with sameness, the CTMU employs something called “property-dualism”. As a result, if I were to say that the cause and effect of reality were the same, I need to also indicate that they differ in property to maintain logical consistency – reality initiates difference through sameness; [the paradox resides in the coincidence of sameness and difference, while a type-theoretic resolution inheres in the logical and mathematical differentiation between them].
Reality is a self-contained, syndiffeonic relation that qualifies as a language; and because it is self-contained with respect to processing as well as configuration, it can be called a self-configuring, self-processing language (or SCSPL). The proof of metaphysical uniqueness establishes that there can only be one, true theory of reality, and that it corresponds to a syndiffeonic relation, namely the CTMU tautology. Lastly, although I accede that my tone has been harsh, keep in mind that I’ve explained the theory and you haven’t shown even the slightest amount of comprehension (it’s rather tedious to explain the CTMU to most people); I also consider my references sufficient to clarify the CTMU (as I don’t have time to manufacture a personal tour of the theory to everyone that asks); in my honest opinion, my choice of language has been well controlled under the circumstances. I recommend looking at Chris’s 56-page PCID paper about the CTMU (which I’ve provided you a link to). Reality is a self-deterministic tautology amounting to a self-resolving paradox; thus, reality is immune to paradox. In short, the CTMU concurrently conflates and juxtaposes subjective/objective aspects into a dual-aspect ontic-nomothetic medium with mental and physical properties respectively related as syntax is related to language. Hopefully I’ve now “clarified” the theory to you.
Let’s ignore the etiquette issue for now. I think the idea of something being a subset of itself is naive at best. I think it’s a paradox that has been asserted and not one that is actually supported.
The sentence self-resolving paradox is a paradox.
I’m trying to make sense of the idea that reality contains representations of things instead of things…
I’ve read around it, and I can’t find a coherent definition of self-contained (or, self-simulating or self-configuring). I also can’t find any definition of the word syndiffeonic.
I seem to have thrown out a few advanced terms that don’t have a (standard) dictionary definition…be that as it may, this document provides precise definitions for everything: http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Self-resolving paradox := a paradox that resolves itself by it’s very construction, and is in this way immune to irresolvable-paradox (think of an object determining the details of *it’s* existence, for example). Furthermore, here’s an exemplification of reality (a *dual-aspect*, ontic-nomothetic medium) containing itself from without: the real universe topologically contains all and only that which is real, and that which is “real” descriptively contains the real universe (as you can see, if we define two senses of containment on the aspects of the same object, namely the terms “real universe” and “real”, this statement is free from contradiction). – This amounts to the term “real” describing the real universe from within (descriptive containment), while the real universe contains all that is real (topological containment); this object (reality) contains itself from without because you have a temporal feedback loop, namely “the real predicatively contains the real universe which topologically contains the real which descriptively contains the real universe which topologically contains the real…etc. ad infinitum”; reality is thus self-contained; thus and so, we have done away with an infinite-explanatory regress and employed a self-contained feedback loop that provides it’s own origin and continuity.
This doesn’t qualify as an “impossible”, infinite-explanatory regress (one with no ultimate origin) *because* the explanation (or origin) of reality you arrive to, “the real universe” is where had you started off in the first place: the real universe. Hence the logical consistency of a dual-aspect monism.
(If anyone here would like a deeper look at the CTMU, please read Chris’s paper – it’s really the best explanation of the theory, and I can only fit so much into the summaries I provided.)
Brandon, these are your words
without bothering to respond to the question i asked in my last response. You keep saying guys are involved in ad hominems and it is you who has made that your mode of argument when you are not parroting the words of Chris. You have been challenged to make the argument in a way that is accessible in your own words and all you keep doing is claiming you have used some advanced terminologies and keep on providing links.
Unless you define what god is being proven, my refutation still stands. You also need demonstrate, without posting more links why god is need of mathematical proof or whatever proof and only by the brightest of minds instead of being accessible to every Tom, Dick and Harry.
You assert correctly
then you continue to write
without demonstrating why this must be so. You find yourself in the same hole the scholastics and medieval philosophers who tried to provide evidence for the existence of god through cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. You will go nowhere except end up in absurdities from where reason will not be able to get you out.
Come down from this assumed pedestal, arguing from authority and claiming you have proved something. You are as the others before have said an obnoxious little fellow.
Sorry , Mak, I said he is a dick. Not obnoxious. 🙂
duly noted
@HifzanShafiee
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
That how it suppose to be write… And if you understand Islam, “God” is a part of unknown knowledge. If tell me that “I don’t have any idea”, it was correct.
The argument about evidence are already being discuss with Allallt in above comment. I not necessary to repeat again. Please, take a time to read commentary above.
You, Atheist, do have an argument on this except by smear and stupid comment. You don’t have any reasoning that “God do not exist”. Your reasoning only can work to “Demi-god” i.e Jesus, Thor, Buddha, etc.
Please take a time to read, reading can reduce ignorance. So, I hope you do that.
I believe the debate end here…
The onus is ALWAYS on the one making the claim.
The one and only shout you have is the God of the Gaps theory. You may consider your particular version is wrapped in a pretty pink bow or burka but it is still a load of garbage.
Just because you have no integrity and truly believe the Koran was somehow metaphorically ‘dictated” by a god is not my problem.
You cannot first assume there is a god just because it says so in a book or came to you in a dream.
See a psychologist.
Arch,
If you look through my comment with you, my argument is using classical philosophy idea…
“God of the Gaps theory”?? When I said that? I wonder how you always get the conclusion…
If you can not win, just say so… It more easier that way, no need to attack on personal basis by telling people “dictated”, or “garbage” or what ever. It just like a desperate boxing clinch.
No, this is most definitely not desperation. I am open to be convinced by proper evidence.
So far, you, like every other champion for the God Did It Theory has yet to produce anything of substance.
No, you did not use the term God of the Gaps, but this is the colloquial term applied to the nonsense you wish to offer up as evidence.
Furthermore, your evidence is based on the utterly ridiculous claim that your little rag of a book, the Koran is the literal word of a god.
I mean , really? You truly wish to pass this horse apples nonsense off in the 21st century?
This is not about ‘winning’. Who suggested this was about point scoring at all? What a churlish thing to say.
This is a blog run by adults for adults about adult content.
If you wish to behave like a child and maintain such a preposterous standpoint then this is your choice.
But please, always, always be mindful that this is the same Insane doctrine believed by those who would gleefully strap C4 to children and tell them Allah awaits. Something every Muslim must live with.
Shaifee,
You make no argument by claiming god should be called this or that and then arguing we must read and understand Islam. Islam is based on the Judeo- Christian theology and other middle eastern gods. The fact that your stupid prophet said he is the last messenger of god does not make it true, far from it. Those are the pronouncements of a deranged man.
When you have a better argument for your god or any god come back and this is granting you too much already
Makagutu,
I am sorry to inform that quote is from Newton and resemble my thought… Please take time to read…
You no need to understand Islam. Exception for this case, you want to argue about it, so at least get a knowledge about it. If not, it look like a stupid person who think he is clever but he doesn’t know anything.
Just bad mouth about my prophet, making you more clever than him?
You quote Newton as an authority on theology? That;s quite strange. I will when I get time refer you to his other thoughts.
I spend time reading about Islam, the development of the Koran and the Hadiths. It is only through that I have been able to understand the delusion called Islam.
Your prophet and clever can’t be used together. I make no apologies for that.
Makagutu,
Read the title, it called “On teleology”… not “On teleology of Islam”.
Attacking on personal basis make people look stupid, don’t do that…
We know what the word means, but you base your version on the Koran. Unless you are suggesting you are now leaning more toward the Bible version?
Sorry Arc,
It was a waste of time to discuss with you, as you already know my position and I not necessary keep explaining to you. If you need further explanation, go and learn..
Learn what?
You are behaving like a spoilt child Your irate fundamentalism cuts no cloth here, my son, that I can tell you.
You claim higher authority from what?
That rag you read is a preposterous collection of nonsense and the god theory you derive from it, equally so.
I accept that you believe what you do. Please have the integrity to admit that it is all based on faith.
This I have no problem with but your special pleading tactics make me nauseated.
It hard talk to a person who know only Christianity in his life.
Be focus on topics, you have stray away too much. Using smearing tactics are not helping much.
So lets simplify it for you, okay. No Christianity.
1) The Right Perspective: Universe/s- Big Bang – ?
2) The Idiot’s Perspective. Universe – Big Bang – bible / koran or other religious text – god.
I choose Number 1.
Which will you choose?
With a mark of “?” make you more clever? This is the most hilarious answer that I never heard.
The condition of clever and stupid are based on believing on “?” and God. Is it “?” is unknown? Because God of Islam are also unknown/ unreachable…
So, it was big bang? How do you know it? Have you seen it? Or it just some prediction of university lecturer about the history of universe? Can yo prove it too me? Or just some faith to university lecturer that you never meet?
Really, you are just being an ass. The whole reason for the ? (question mark ) is simply because ultimately there is no hard and fast answer and this I freely admit to.
Whereas you will posit a god. And of course not just ANY god , your god, the one that features in your grubby little religious book that you claim was handed down word of mouth, but was actually plagiarised from the scripture that preceded it.
You should expected the result when keep acting like an idiot… Or you demand a medal of honor?
Based on your reply, another smearing act is you defensive proposal? Don’t blame me if your idea is stupid which easily rebuke.. Then you should be more careful on your statement next time..
Who did I attack? I read the title of the post and I know what it means.
The hadiths portray the prophet as uneducated and illiterate. That he couldn’t write and read. Tell me am wrong and I will accept correction.
The hadiths portray the prophet as uneducated and illiterate. That he couldn’t write and read. Tell me am wrong and I will accept correction.
So, what is the relationship between “Teleology” with illiterate prophet? I was too dumb too understand your sophisticated philosophy.
I thought you know how to read and have at least some level of English comprehension, maybe am wrong.
By the way
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that, analogous to purposes found in human actions, nature inherently tends toward definite ends. (wiki)
It say a word ANY PHILOPSOPHY, it was different from theology.
read my response to Allalt
Actually, he raises a good point. What is the relationship of the education of the prophet and the validity of his story?
I mean, there are many reasons to think Islam is as erroneous as any other religion. I just don’t see that argument.
now that you also ask, on more than one occasion on this thread, he was asked to define god. He wrote what I thought to be from the Koran but he said is from Isaac Newton. It his initial comment to which I responded that his prophet could have said he is the last prophet of god and there is only one god which isn’t the case.
As a clarification I know this post is on teleology but you and me agree that all comments haven’t been on that.
I hope that clarifies the matter. I don’t want to hijack the thread.
Don’t worry about this thread. It’s hugely off topic in all areas. I’m trying to figure out the CTMU still (it’s based on assertions that are unjustified, but I think the guy promoting it doesn’t understand it well enough to recognise it)
Go through it and then tell us what you make of it. I am sure am not going to read it.
I’ll try and post about it soon. But I’m not convinced it exists as a formalism, and I’m hesitant to be the person who makes it. Large quantities of it are inaccessible because they use weird words, at least one of each is entirely unique to the CMTU (which means it made up, right?)
I thought from the word go it was made up besides after looking looking at arguments for god from modal, ontological and cosmological, I am convinced that even this can be tucked in one of these and as such in some way attempts to bring god into existence by definition.
Keep reading and save us the pain; you will be a true saviour of the race 😛
@ Hifzan
There is no rational answer that includes a god in it.
That you are unable to understand this is evidence of the indoctrination you so clearly demonstrate in the manner of your replies.
You assume there is a god and build your argument back to front from this perspective.
But how could you not? Religion does not encourage free thinking and honesty,
It isn't difficult to fathom why what you propose is nonsense as the god in your argument is different to the one in a Jewish or Christian or Hindu argument.
You are unable or unwilling to grasp the fact that this indoctrination is largely cultural and has very little to do with a monotheistic deity at all.
If you were able to approach this rationally you would see the truth in this. but,sadly, this is what indoctrination does: blinds the victim to such simple realities.
Never mind, as I can not grasp the rational idea. Why not you, a genius answer the question I suggested above.
So, it was big bang? How do you know it? Have you seen it? Or it just some prediction of university lecturer about the history of universe? Can yo prove it too me? Or just some faith to university lecturer that you never meet?
Is that a indoctrination too?
Science postulates the Big Bang and this is, as far as I am aware, accepted by pretty much one and all.
The issue at stake is what caused it.
You posit a god I say I don’t know.
The onus on you is to provide evidence.
You cannot, yet state your assertion is truth.
based on your stupid fallacious book and the ramblings of the delusional ramblings of an ( likely) illiterate prophet.
Thus, as only an indoctrinated person – and only a person indoctrinated in a specific Islamic based culture to boot – would accept this book as truth I can therefore ,dismiss it with impunity.
End of story.
That it?
In the past scientist thought that the earth is flat, and it being accepted pretty much one and all. Almost everyone are accepting it.
Just because scientist say so?
Why do you think the case of Big Bang and Flat Earth are different?
I not need to indoctrinate you, I living far away from you. Except smearing tactics, do you have any others prominent tactic?
I no need to explain to you, it was just a discussion, if you don’t agree you can just walk away. Simple as that. If you want to impose, atheist doctrine to me, the the onus is on you not me.
Science/Scientists thought this? Really? Would you like to offer into evidence any ancient scientific theories or papers concerning this?
If you really require an answer to this – and you being an engineer, I believe – then sorry you are a bloody fool.
You are misunderstanding what I write.
I did not say I was concerned about you indoctrinating me. I stated that you are indoctrinated.
Of course you don’t need to explain. You cannot explain That is why you have faith. It requires no evidence. Unlike engineering which does require evidence.
This is an open forum, I was merely responding to a comment you made.
If you don’t wish to explore your world view and are going to whine every time it comes under scrutiny then maybe your faith and religion are not worth the paper they are written on?
I already explain when I have dissuss with Allallt above, you dont accept it. That is not my problem.
Your life is being surrounded by Christianity, what can I expect from you…
Surrounded by Christianity?
So therefore because you are surrounded by Muslims your thinking is clear on this issue?
This smacks of the most outrageous arrogance?
You are avoiding the central point. The placement of a Creator. It matters not which religion one follows other that to highlight the differences in how believers regard this creator.
You can offer NOTHING that can justify the placing of a creator entity in the framework of this argument.
Just because scientist say so?
Why do you think the case of Big Bang and Flat Earth are different?
If you dont mind, I really need an answer.
How do you so sure that Big Bang is truth that make it was a factual to you. As I understand Big bang is a theory..
I know the Big Bang Theory is truth because I have watched all 7 series, you oaf. Now stop making an ass of yourself and go and recite a Surah or something.
Big Bang:
Current expansion (i.e. all things are moving away from each other at a speed which is proportional to their distance from each other)
Expansion is supported by “red shift”.
Relativity and Newtonian laws do not permit the oscillation of a single universe.
The Cosmic microwave background radiation.
The last scattering surface.
Inflationary theory.
All these are then consistent with stellar and galactic evolution.
In fact, the only inconsistency is religious books.
Makagutu and Arch,
Both of you action are resemble an interview between Fox News and Reza Aslan in past few month.
Both of you are the version of Evangelist Christian who are wearing Atheist clothing.. I said good for both of you.
For whom it may concern that think I quoting from religious book.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
Reference : Newton, Principia, General Scholium
I just twist and not showing the quotation. Everyone already jump into a conclusion. Lack of reading and too much watch television, and like to pretend to be an expert.
Sigh, it was tough world..
I know you are referring to me. I couldn’t have read all the books but am sure Newton was a poor theologian after having some of the things he said about god. For example the same Newton wrote this about god
and
and if you are going to take Newton as an authority on theology, I think you also must agree that your god is a slave driver.
Insulting me will get you nowhere especially since you don’t have a monopoly on insults. I was clear I thought that was from your prophet and when you clarified I let it pass. Why do you suffer from small person syndrome?
Simple conclusion – The one who disagree with you all is poor theologian, the one who agree with you is all great theologian.
Wasting my time to discuss any further.
I have never said there is a good theologian simply because theology to me is the study of nothing, makes no predictions and has given us no results for the several years men have been engaged in it. I only have grades of poor to worst theologians, none good.
So, It have more concrete reasoning for not discussing it. End of discussion.
Brandon Clifton is correct. Keep up the good work Brandon. 🙂
Due to an intensive (and rather tricky) study of the stratified utility function of our SCSPL, I can assure you that your efforts are properly included within the Designer’s will. However, just to help steer you in the right direction, I’ll point out where you need to recheck your thinking. You need to research more about abstract neural networks, learning and timing functions, dependency functions, diagonalization and data extensions. You need to pay more close attention to conspansion with strata and venn-diagrammatic evolution as the main focus. You need to rethink about the nature and directionality of time. You said that UBT is identical to “emptiness”, which it is not. To illustrate the concept of UBT more colorfully, I’ll give you this gem. In any mathematical theory, you must have a variable which represents the theory of the universe being described. One word, one variable theories are something we cannot do without. Whenever we assign a word to an argument of description it demonstrates that one word theories are utilized as an initial and integral concept. The very act of pointing to something of which to be described invokes an isomorphism between theory and universe and the two must coincide. Because we can assign a variable to reality as a whole before we partition that variable into a logico-mathematically variegated theory for a logico-mathematically variegated universe, there must be a protomedium or “variable” for the real universe. Because the distribution of constraint external to this variable is not binding over it, the variable must internally variegate by incorporating a non-distributive lattice with a special kind of self-contained language called “SCSPL”. Nothing can exist outside of an SCSPL domain, the only way for this variable to stratify is internally. This variable is the ontological groundstate and is commonly referred to as “the mind of God”. The mind of God is the creator and designer of the real universe; it does this the only way it can, by internally stratifying into the SCSPL universe. Because substitution of this variable for content is generative and selective in nature, there is no exclusive pathway from source to output. The generative nature of causality implies the existence of self-determinacy in a self-contained system. The way that God stratifies itself is through something called teleology, which basically means that it designs and transforms the universe based on its will or ‘utility function’. Once this utility function reflexively maximizes through SCSPL invariants(anything whose possibility ensures its existence has these invariants by necessity), the choice, chooser and that which is chosen are bound from the variable into the contextual environment through a timeless intersection; ignited when the opportunity presents itself.
And for metaphysical treat, I’ll clean up your thinking with this: simply take an inductive lifting of physical constraint to extend the language of physics into a more general and inclusive language which refers to and expresses physics in terms of itself. Any language which accomplishes this feat and lies at this upper stratum is regarded as a /meta/-physical /meta/-language. Such a meta-language of physical reality would be regarded as the /generator/ of physical reality. Just imagine that the universe is constrained by a many to 1 mapping of possible physical law to actual physical law (imagine a thin cylinder turned sideways so that it appears to model the universe serving as its own transformational argument). To imagine the universe’s associated meta-physics we simply reverse this mapping from many to 1, to 1 to many i.e. a language which can deal with many “physics” at once without being subject to their disjunctive constraints(imagine the thin cylinder as a darker more solid color and as inside of a thicker cylinder of equal length; this thicker one is clear{to represent suspension of definitive constraints}. As the total cylinder models the universe as a self-transforming argument, the encompassing clear part represents the meta-physical meta-language of the thinner darker physical part. The clear and solid dark cylinders could be likened to the syntax and content of the language of physics; by referencing to its meta-language, it is transformed by syntax; by referencing to its sub-languages, it transforms and carries content (as something well-enough bound to be coherently recognized as a state). So where does this leave us with language? Well, it says that any self-contained syntactic stratum is a language if it has (a) a higher stratum or (b) figures in its own definition by including itself as syntactic-content thus avoiding the reference to upper strata. Point (b) demonstrates a universal property of language, it is dynamic; that is, a syntax must generate and transform its own argument by a dynamic stratification of self. On the syntactic level, there is no difference between that which binds and that which is bound, precisely because they are aspects of a dynamic unity that require self-contained definition. The transformational argument is formulated in terms of and is inseparably attached to its transformational syntax, and thus they must be regarded as a dual-aspect monic holistic quantum of universe, i.e. a “syntactic operator”.