How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not telling you what you really mean. I don't think anyone, including you, knows what you really mean.

I'm telling you what the things you are posting mean, which is not in line with the conclusions you are drawing.

So again. That humans have come up with descriptions for various processes of the universe does not prove of imply a creator for those processes. Our 'systems of cognitive description' as you insist on calling them prove only that we have designed a system of description for processes which we do not know the origins of.

There's nothing wrong with you believing a creator began the universe and put those processes in place. However, the fact of their existence is not objective proof there was such a creator.

Lol, I don't care if you think it OK, Miss Marples, but that you admit that this designed system of models we have for the universe, t hat accurately reflects the behavior of the universe but at the same time means NOTHING about the universe itself being designed is hilarious.

If I design a system of logical statements that interact in a logical and designed way to simulate almost perfectly the behavior of another system, then the system being modeled itself has design.

If that isn't apparent to you then you have a problem.

So once again, your argument boils down to humanity being able to describe a system means the system being described was designed.

No, that is not what I said, and until you can repeat what I said correctly I will not further answer your question.

At least it's a step up from any human description being evidence of design!

Is there a single system of behavior in the observed universe which was not designed?

Get what I said right and we can discuss it, but not till then.

There is no point in my repeatedly explaining things to you for you to get it totally wrong over and over.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You seem to think that there is some purpose or goal behind the evolution of life. Biologically, if not the only goal, at least the most important goal, in life is to reproduce, and thus perpetuate itself. It is the most conserved trait in all life forms. Everything else is just gravy. Conservatives don't get this.

"Reproduce", i.e. create life.
Life only comes from life.
Evolution does not explain original life

That is true, as evolution does not include theories of abiogenesis.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We're getting somewhere!

Since a rock has no design, can it not be described with cognitive expression?

Yes, it can be, but not with cognitive expression that models the rocks behavior, except at a molecular level, but at that level we are not talking about a rock but something entirely different.

As a geologist, I must say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Lol, what I stated had nothing to do with geology.

Again, you are not paying attention to what is posted.

What, you want to debate geology now? lol, which volcanic or sedimentary rocks?

roflmao

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, it can be, but not with cognitive expression that models the rocks behavior, except at a molecular level, but at that level we are not talking about a rock but something entirely different.

As a geologist, I must say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Lol, what I stated had nothing to do with geology.

Again, you are not paying attention to what is posted.

What, you want to debate geology now? lol, which volcanic or sedimentary rocks?

roflmao

Rocks have nothing to do with geology? What have you been smoking??? You really don't want to get into a geology debate with me. That would be a very bad move on your part.

 

[edthecynic]

Except to an outside observer. A person in an external universe would see at what we call t=0 that at t=-1 there was no universe for all this energy. So it came from somewhere outside of it, or was conjured in a microsecond, take your pick.

You can try to hide behind the semantics of what the start of time in our universe means, but its paper thin and anyone can see though it.

At T=-1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy contracting. At T=0 an outside observer would see our universe of energy neither expanding nor contracting. At T=1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy expanding. At no point would our universe of energy not exist.
Try again.

Bullshit.

At t=-1 there would be no universe.

Bullshit yourself.

At T=-1 our universe of energy would be contracting in the Big Crunch. The singularity at the end of the Big Crunch and the singularity before the Big Bang are one and the same.

Try again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As a geologist, I must say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Lol, what I stated had nothing to do with geology.

Again, you are not paying attention to what is posted.

What, you want to debate geology now? lol, which volcanic or sedimentary rocks?

roflmao

Rocks have nothing to do with geology? What have you been smoking??? You really don't want to get into a geology debate with me. That would be a very bad move on your part.

Lol, I was talking about a hypothetical rock and said there is no reason to see design in it, other than its chemical properties, and you say that I therefore know nothing about rocks.

Can you essplain to me what obvious design there is then in a rock?

And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.

We would have to find something to debate on, but I somehow doubt there is anything we disagree on.

Wow, what a creepy feeling I just had.

 

[JimBowie1958]

At T=-1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy contracting. At T=0 an outside observer would see our universe of energy neither expanding nor contracting. At T=1 an outside observer would see our universe of energy expanding. At no point would our universe of energy not exist.
Try again.

Bullshit.

At t=-1 there would be no universe.

Bullshit yourself.

At T=-1 our universe of energy would be contracting in the Big Crunch. The singularity at the end of the Big Crunch and the singularity before the Big Bang are one and the same.

Try again.

Lol, there is no contraction, dumbass. The universe is speeding up in its expansion, not slowing to any kind of crunch.

There is at this time no evidence to support this notion other than a ridiculous urge to find a way out of the obvious beginning of the flow of time.

But mathematically we still know that time cannot be eternal and must have a start point, even if it goes through a gazillion cycles of some sort.

You lose, loser, betting on a set of outdated theories only conjured up to avoid the idea of a Creator.

 

[edthecynic]

Bullshit.

At t=-1 there would be no universe.

Bullshit yourself.

At T=-1 our universe of energy would be contracting in the Big Crunch. The singularity at the end of the Big Crunch and the singularity before the Big Bang are one and the same.

Try again.

Lol, there is no contraction, dumbass. The universe is speeding up in its expansion, not slowing to any kind of crunch.

There is at this time no evidence to support this notion other than a ridiculous urge to find a way out of the obvious beginning of the flow of time.

But mathematically we still know that time cannot be eternal and must have a start point, even if it goes through a gazillion cycles of some sort.

You lose, loser, betting on a set of outdated theories only conjured up to avoid the idea of a Creator.

The farthest extremes of our universe of energy are accelerating toward the super massive universal black hole. Thank you for confirming it.
Try again.

 

[Montrovant]

Lol, I don't care if you think it OK, Miss Marples, but that you admit that this designed system of models we have for the universe, t hat accurately reflects the behavior of the universe but at the same time means NOTHING about the universe itself being designed is hilarious.

If I design a system of logical statements that interact in a logical and designed way to simulate almost perfectly the behavior of another system, then the system being modeled itself has design.

If that isn't apparent to you then you have a problem.

So once again, your argument boils down to humanity being able to describe a system means the system being described was designed.

No, that is not what I said, and until you can repeat what I said correctly I will not further answer your question.

At least it's a step up from any human description being evidence of design!

Is there a single system of behavior in the observed universe which was not designed?

Get what I said right and we can discuss it, but not till then.

There is no point in my repeatedly explaining things to you for you to get it totally wrong over and over.

I can repeat exactly what you said, but what it's supposed to mean is unclear.

You said that our having designed a system of models which accurately describe the behavior of the universe is evidence of design. That, to me, says just what I did in my last post; you are using the fact that humanity can accurately describe some aspects of the universe as evidence that the universe was designed.

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

You have said that any system of laws is by definition designed. If we ignore the laws in contention (those rules governing the behavior of the universe) what other laws do you know of to use to base that statement upon? The only ones I am aware of are those humanity creates to govern itself. As such, wouldn't that mean that your insistence that all systems of laws are designed, therefore the universe was designed, is based on the fact that humans design laws to govern themselves?

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

Here you say that we are discovering laws that accurately model behavior. Actually we discover behavior in the universe and create systems to model that behavior. We don't discover the model for behavior; it wasn't created and left somewhere for us to come upon! Humanity creates these systems, these models, with which we describe our observations of the universe.

Is any of that untrue? If so, please, clarify for me.

You have multiple times talked about the conceptualization of laws of the universe, as though the fact that humans can conceptualize laws requires those things we are observing to be designed. This is why I keep asking about whether there are things or systems that are not designed. You very much seem to say that because humans have come up with concepts about the universe and how it works, and done so accurately, the universe must be designed. So is it your contention that humans can only create accurate concepts about things that were designed? And if so, what is your basis for that?

If that is not what you said, please, clarify for me.

I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread. Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right. Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, what I stated had nothing to do with geology.

Again, you are not paying attention to what is posted.

What, you want to debate geology now? lol, which volcanic or sedimentary rocks?

roflmao

Rocks have nothing to do with geology? What have you been smoking??? You really don't want to get into a geology debate with me. That would be a very bad move on your part.

Lol, I was talking about a hypothetical rock and said there is no reason to see design in it, other than its chemical properties, and you say that I therefore know nothing about rocks.

Geology is the study of the Earth, primarily the rocks of which it is composed, but also other issues as well. So to even suggest a hypothetical rock is to invoke a discussion of geology. A rock is a collection of minerals (though sometimes composed of only one mineral). A mineral is a naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic orderly crystalline structure, color, and hardness, the properties of which reflect the molecular/atomic composition and structure of the mineral. This was the definition when I was a geology student in the 1970s, and remains the definition today. I agree that there is no reason to see design in it. But using your definitions of "designed", you appear to be having a hard time reconciling them with the facts of rocks and minerals, many of which are highly ordered.

And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.

You can certainly try.

 

[emilynghiem]

You've still not answered my question.

What question are you referring to then?

I responded to your initial question here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...of-science-without-design-10.html#post8834697

What have I missed?

If god is a first cause, in your opinion, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause?

I agree that people can either interpret
God to be the source or creator of all things
God to be the Universe or set of all things with no beginning or end but just self-existent

Either way, we can focus on the LAWS and principles within the
world or universe, whether or not we agree if the whole set has a finite beginning or not.

The point is to agree on the rules, principle or relationships.
Then the issues boil down to how can we reconcile
our different ways or systems of expressing these concepts and principles.
We are still talking about the same concepts, but our systems
for representing these "universal truths" may not agree with each other.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bullshit yourself.

At T=-1 our universe of energy would be contracting in the Big Crunch. The singularity at the end of the Big Crunch and the singularity before the Big Bang are one and the same.

Try again.

Lol, there is no contraction, dumbass. The universe is speeding up in its expansion, not slowing to any kind of crunch.

There is at this time no evidence to support this notion other than a ridiculous urge to find a way out of the obvious beginning of the flow of time.

But mathematically we still know that time cannot be eternal and must have a start point, even if it goes through a gazillion cycles of some sort.

You lose, loser, betting on a set of outdated theories only conjured up to avoid the idea of a Creator.

The farthest extremes of our universe of energy are accelerating toward the super massive universal black hole. Thank you for confirming it.
Try again.

lol, no you try again when you are sober, dude

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

What question are you referring to then?

I responded to your initial question here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...of-science-without-design-10.html#post8834697

What have I missed?

If god is a first cause, in your opinion, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause?

I agree that people can either interpret
God to be the source or creator of all things
God to be the Universe or set of all things with no beginning or end but just self-existent

Either way, we can focus on the LAWS and principles within the
world or universe, whether or not we agree if the whole set has a finite beginning or not.

The point is to agree on the rules, principle or relationships.
Then the issues boil down to how can we reconcile
our different ways or systems of expressing these concepts and principles.
We are still talking about the same concepts, but our systems
for representing these "universal truths" may not agree with each other.

So the difference between an atheist and a Islamacist is simply semantics?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Rocks have nothing to do with geology? What have you been smoking??? You really don't want to get into a geology debate with me. That would be a very bad move on your part.

Lol, I was talking about a hypothetical rock and said there is no reason to see design in it, other than its chemical properties, and you say that I therefore know nothing about rocks.

Geology is the study of the Earth, primarily the rocks of which it is composed, but also other issues as well. So to even suggest a hypothetical rock is to invoke a discussion of geology. A rock is a collection of minerals (though sometimes composed of only one mineral). A mineral is a naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic orderly crystalline structure, color, and hardness, the properties of which reflect the molecular/atomic composition and structure of the mineral. This was the definition when I was a geology student in the 1970s, and remains the definition today. I agree that there is no reason to see design in it. But using your definitions of "designed", you appear to be having a hard time reconciling them with the facts of rocks and minerals, many of which are highly ordered.

And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.

You can certainly try.

My hypothetical rock was not made from minerals. It is made of Unobtanium.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So once again, your argument boils down to humanity being able to describe a system means the system being described was designed.

No, that is not what I said, and until you can repeat what I said correctly I will not further answer your question.

Get what I said right and we can discuss it, but not till then.

There is no point in my repeatedly explaining things to you for you to get it totally wrong over and over.

I can repeat exactly what you said, but what it's supposed to mean is unclear.

You said that our having designed a system of models which accurately describe the behavior of the universe is evidence of design. That, to me, says just what I did in my last post; you are using the fact that humanity can accurately describe some aspects of the universe as evidence that the universe was designed.

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

No, you got it right this time, but that is not what you said in the highlighted text prior.

You have said that any system of laws is by definition defined. If we ignore the laws in contention (those rules governing the behavior of the universe) what other laws do you know of to use to base that statement upon? The only ones I am aware of are those humanity creates to govern itself. As such, wouldn't that mean that your insistence that all systems of laws are designed, therefore the universe was designed, is based on the fact that humans design laws to govern themselves?

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

Definition: Law (Meaning of Law)
Definition: In arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist.

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

Here you say that we are discovering laws that accurately model behavior. Actually we discover behavior in the universe and create systems to model that behavior. We don't discover the model for behavior; it wasn't created and left somewhere for us to come upon! Humanity creates these systems, these models, with which we describe our observations of the universe.

Is any of that untrue? If so, please, clarify for me.

Yes, these concept exist outside of human perception, as ORo has said, and other philosophers and theologicans regarding OBjective Truth; it exists independent of human perception.

You have multiple times talked about the conceptualization of laws of the universe, as though the fact that humans can conceptualize laws requires those things we are observing to be designed. This is why I keep asking about whether there are things or systems that are not designed. You very much seem to say that because humans have come up with concepts about the universe and how it works, and done so accurately, the universe must be designed. So is it your contention that humans can only create accurate concepts about things that were designed? And if so, what is your basis for that?

If that is not what you said, please, clarify for me.

The bolded and italicized definition leaves out the idea of a system of these concepts.

And no, humans are not entirely accurate regarding these laws but only approach complete accuracy

I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread. Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right. Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.

This was a gold star effort, and I can answer what questions you have about My opinions on this, as long as we keep the lines distinct.

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, I was talking about a hypothetical rock and said there is no reason to see design in it, other than its chemical properties, and you say that I therefore know nothing about rocks.

Geology is the study of the Earth, primarily the rocks of which it is composed, but also other issues as well. So to even suggest a hypothetical rock is to invoke a discussion of geology. A rock is a collection of minerals (though sometimes composed of only one mineral). A mineral is a naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic orderly crystalline structure, color, and hardness, the properties of which reflect the molecular/atomic composition and structure of the mineral. This was the definition when I was a geology student in the 1970s, and remains the definition today. I agree that there is no reason to see design in it. But using your definitions of "designed", you appear to be having a hard time reconciling them with the facts of rocks and minerals, many of which are highly ordered.

And I could debate you all day on geology, though you do apparently have a head for rocks.

You can certainly try.

My hypothetical rock was not made from minerals. It is made of Unobtanium.

 

[Montrovant]

Geology is the study of the Earth, primarily the rocks of which it is composed, but also other issues as well. So to even suggest a hypothetical rock is to invoke a discussion of geology. A rock is a collection of minerals (though sometimes composed of only one mineral). A mineral is a naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic orderly crystalline structure, color, and hardness, the properties of which reflect the molecular/atomic composition and structure of the mineral. This was the definition when I was a geology student in the 1970s, and remains the definition today. I agree that there is no reason to see design in it. But using your definitions of "designed", you appear to be having a hard time reconciling them with the facts of rocks and minerals, many of which are highly ordered.



You can certainly try.

My hypothetical rock was not made from minerals. It is made of Unobtanium.

I still can't believe a movie that used that name for a scarce material is the highest grossing of all time.

 

[Montrovant]

No, that is not what I said, and until you can repeat what I said correctly I will not further answer your question.

Get what I said right and we can discuss it, but not till then.

There is no point in my repeatedly explaining things to you for you to get it totally wrong over and over.

I can repeat exactly what you said, but what it's supposed to mean is unclear.

You said that our having designed a system of models which accurately describe the behavior of the universe is evidence of design. That, to me, says just what I did in my last post; you are using the fact that humanity can accurately describe some aspects of the universe as evidence that the universe was designed.

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

No, you got it right this time, but that is not what you said in the highlighted text prior.




Definition: Law (Meaning of Law)
Definition: In arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist.





Yes, these concept exist outside of human perception, as ORo has said, and other philosophers and theologicans regarding OBjective Truth; it exists independent of human perception.

You have multiple times talked about the conceptualization of laws of the universe, as though the fact that humans can conceptualize laws requires those things we are observing to be designed. This is why I keep asking about whether there are things or systems that are not designed. You very much seem to say that because humans have come up with concepts about the universe and how it works, and done so accurately, the universe must be designed. So is it your contention that humans can only create accurate concepts about things that were designed? And if so, what is your basis for that?

If that is not what you said, please, clarify for me.

The bolded and italicized definition leaves out the idea of a system of these concepts.

And no, humans are not entirely accurate regarding these laws but only approach complete accuracy

I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread. Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right. Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.

This was a gold star effort, and I can answer what questions you have about My opinions on this, as long as we keep the lines distinct.

To keep it brief : is the fact that we use a system of concepts or laws somehow indicative of design, where a single concept or law is not?

And again, on what do you base this idea that anything we describe through a system of concepts must have been designed?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I can repeat exactly what you said, but what it's supposed to mean is unclear.

You said that our having designed a system of models which accurately describe the behavior of the universe is evidence of design. That, to me, says just what I did in my last post; you are using the fact that humanity can accurately describe some aspects of the universe as evidence that the universe was designed.

If that is not what you have said, please, clarify for me.

No, you got it right this time, but that is not what you said in the highlighted text prior.




Definition: Law (Meaning of Law)
Definition: In arts, works, games, etc.: The rules of construction, or of procedure, conforming to the conditions of success; a principle, maxim; or usage; as, the laws of poetry, of architecture, of courtesy, or of whist.





Yes, these concept exist outside of human perception, as ORo has said, and other philosophers and theologicans regarding OBjective Truth; it exists independent of human perception.




The bolded and italicized definition leaves out the idea of a system of these concepts.

And no, humans are not entirely accurate regarding these laws but only approach complete accuracy

I think I've pretty accurately described your posts in this thread. Apparently you disagree and refuse to answer questions until I get it right. Well, since I'm obviously misinterpreting what you're saying, please simplify it for me.

This was a gold star effort, and I can answer what questions you have about My opinions on this, as long as we keep the lines distinct.

To keep it brief : is the fact that we use a system of concepts or laws somehow indicative of design, where a single concept or law is not?

Close, that we are discovering an already existing system of modeling concepts that exist independently of our own perception shows that that system is designed, as such systems of said concepts can only come from a sentient being.

And again, on what do you base this idea that anything we describe through a system of concepts must have been designed?

1) that it is true by definition. If a system of modeling concepts can accurately describe a system, then what is design if not this? If I find a garden in a natural forest, with lines of the same plant species all in watered rows, and everything in place that I might want to plant and maintain a garden, then what do I have to witness/observe before I have a justifiable high degree of certitude in deciding that that is a designed arrangement (and maybe I had better leave those five leaved plants alone and get out of here quickly?)

2) In every case we know of that can be described by such systems of modeling concepts, those systems are designed. By induction then we can form a tentative conclusion that all such systems are designed.