How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[orogenicman]

You are arguing from the first cause fallacy. If god is a first cause, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause? In which case, Chocolate:

Bump.

What? You didn't like the bunny suit?

Lol, its a waste of space, so I deleted it.

Right, but you didn't answer my question?

 

[Montrovant]

lol, shit for brains, you have argued for no design for the whole time, now you move the goal posts to a soft 'there is no proof' bullshit.

EVERY system of laws (not under contention here) shows design, so there is no reason to believe that this universe's laws are not designed.

Secondly there is no definition of design applicable to this situation that does not also include a system of natural laws.

Eat shit troll.

You're comparing human/societal laws to the laws of physics, or what retard?

BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

 

[Montrovant]

Until you point out the fault it isn't faulty.

Stupid ass

It's circular logic, dumbass.

No it is not.

All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.

Everything humans have ever observed has been described by 'human cognitive expressions'. So you contend that everything in the observed universe was designed, and your evidence for that is the fact that humans have described it.

Humans put a description to everything they observe. Everything with a human description was designed. Therefore, everything was designed. That about sum up the circle?

 

[Montrovant]

The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.

All things that are describable in human cognitive expressions are designed.

The behavior of the universe is describable in human cognitive expression.

Therefore the universe displays design.

That is not circular at all.

Feel free to prove that all things describable in human cognitive expressions (which really means anything humans describe) are designed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case

(you assert it, but it's neither fact nor proven so it cannot make a case),

It is fact and true by lack of a contrary example. Were I to say 'Humans have five fingers.' One might object that some have six or some have lost fingers and that would be an exception to a valid description of human beings having six fingers.

But you cant find one case other than the point under contention as an example of human laws written that have no design to them, so my point is proven by induction.

and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

(not obviously, whats obvious is that it's not proven)

Lol, yes, it is proven FACT.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

(no, its not stupid already. Being complex does not infer design. That is a fact.)

Yes, it is stupid because I never asserted copmplexities prove desig, you stupid fuckingliar.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

(which is easy, since you cant prove the laws of phsysics were designed)

Done did it. You can keep saying I ddidnt but that is meaningless absent contrary data.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

(you don't make proof in that manor (prove a negative), you prove your assertions --> which you have not done)

I proved it by inductive reason, and you try to disprove it with unwarranted assertion; my point stands.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

(im not the one copy pasting the same thing over and over, that's you broken record)

Because they are in response to you, who are a broken record of stupid bulge.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

(I have proven without flaw that your premise is a fallacy.)

Lol, in your little world perhaps, but I leave it to lurkers to make up their own minds in that regard, and I doubt many of them will be persuaded by your stupid contrary assertions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bump.

What? You didn't like the bunny suit?

Lol, its a waste of space, so I deleted it.

Right, but you didn't answer my question?

Lol, whether I liked it or not is immaterial, and I thought it weird and meaningless for the record.

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, its a waste of space, so I deleted it.

Right, but you didn't answer my question?

Lol, whether I liked it or not is immaterial, and I thought it weird and meaningless for the record.

You've still have not answered my question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're comparing human/societal laws to the laws of physics, or what retard?

BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Right, but you didn't answer my question?

Lol, whether I liked it or not is immaterial, and I thought it weird and meaningless for the record.

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?

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, whether I liked it or not is immaterial, and I thought it weird and meaningless for the record.

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?

 

[Montrovant]

BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

No. All systems of expression have design doesn't even mean what you think it does, it just means the systems of expression have design, not the things they are describing. So, the system of expressions used to describe the physical realities of our universe were (obviously) designed, but that does not in any way mean the physical realities themselves were designed.

Once again, you are using the fact that humans describe something as evidence that something was designed. That makes no sense.

 

[Montrovant]

BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

I also notice you failed to answer my question. Is there a single thing in all the observed universe that was not designed?

 

[edthecynic]

Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

You are wrong right out of the gate. At T=0 there was no space/time. There was energy however. Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy.

Prove it.

If there was no Space-Time, then how could it have been *IN* our universe, idjit?

Because time exists ONLY in terms of motion. At T=0 all the energy of the universe is compressed into one point and there was no motion and therefore no time. This singularity is a very unstable condition and went BANG almost immediately.

You can visualize it like throwing a ball straight up, as it rises it slows down and at its highest point for a moment, a singularity, the ball is neither rising nor falling. This position is unstable and the ball falls back to Earth almost immediately. The ball always existed throughout the entire cycle just like energy always existed throughout the entire Big Bang, Big Crunch cycle.

 

[edthecynic]

If god created the universe, who or what created god?

Lol, retreating to using smilies now? lolol

What God is a red herring. There is only one Creator,

Another pontification without proof!

Why can't there be two or a team of 10s or billions of creators designing the laws of the universe. What law demands only one designer/creator?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Because of the flow of time. Time must have a starting point, while an eternal object/being does not as it exists outside the flow of space-time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If god created the universe, who or what created god?

Lol, retreating to using smilies now? lolol

What God is a red herring. There is only one Creator,

Another pontification without proof!

Why can't there be two or a team of 10s or billions of creators designing the laws of the universe. What law demands only one designer/creator?

That is a religious issue and I am not discussing it here other than to give my opinion of what the facts are.

And there is only one Creator that mankind has been stumbling through the centuries to try and understand.

but if you want to discuss that, why don't you start a new thread?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are wrong right out of the gate. At T=0 there was no space/time. There was energy however. Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy.

Prove it.

If there was no Space-Time, then how could it have been *IN* our universe, idjit?

Because time exists ONLY in terms of motion. At T=0 all the energy of the universe is compressed into one point and there was no motion and therefore no time. This singularity is a very unstable condition and went BANG almost immediately.

You can visualize it like throwing a ball straight up, as it rises it slows down and at its highest point for a moment, a singularity, the ball is neither rising nor falling. This position is unstable and the ball falls back to Earth almost immediately. The ball always existed throughout the entire cycle just like energy always existed throughout the entire Big Bang, Big Crunch cycle.

A lot of talk around the point that there was no universe prior to t=0, and so there was no energy in it, because there was no universe for it.

You can duck the obvious by repeating that with no time there was no before to matter, but an observer from a parallel universe that has contact in some form would not have seen our universe, and it would be interesting to know what they would have recorded when our Big Bang took place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

I also notice you failed to answer my question. Is there a single thing in all the observed universe that was not designed?

Your question is irrelevant since I am not contesting it.

Sure, a rock has no design.

The chemical relations that exist as concepts that bind that rock together do have a systemic design.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, you make an assertion and then require someone to prove it untrue, instead of proving it to be true yourself.

Is there anything, anything at all in the entire universe, that was not designed? If so, have humans been able to accurately describe such a thing?

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

No. All systems of expression have design doesn't even mean what you think it does, it just means the systems of expression have design, not the things they are describing. So, the system of expressions used to describe the physical realities of our universe were (obviously) designed, but that does not in any way mean the physical realities themselves were designed.

Lol, who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I really mean, or that I am wrong like you are some kind of authority.

You are not. You are just another person posting on the internet.

You cant even repeat back to me what I have been saying.

You are a joke.

 

[Montrovant]

The question is whether a cognitive set of descriptions that MODEL the universe' behavior (and thus referred to as laws) do not also show design.

I am not referring to just any crayon drawing by a six year old, but cognitive descriptions that model some behavior, like the law of gravity.

All systems of such cognitive expressions have design. Every single one.

So by induction, all such systems of cognitive description that models the universe's behavior possess design.

This is like saying 'All circles are round' or 'All flat two dimensional surfaces have planes.'

It is true by definition.

No. All systems of expression have design doesn't even mean what you think it does, it just means the systems of expression have design, not the things they are describing. So, the system of expressions used to describe the physical realities of our universe were (obviously) designed, but that does not in any way mean the physical realities themselves were designed.

Lol, who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I really mean, or that I am wrong like you are some kind of authority.

You are not. You are just another person posting on the internet.

You cant even repeat back to me what I have been saying.

You are a joke.

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.