Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

the overwhelming evidence we have tells us that "the random forces of nature" do produce greater complexity all the time.

So where do I find this "overwhelming evidence" with regard to the rest of the universe outside our little planet of life we call earth?

[Stranger]

I think it is highly likely that other intelligent life forms on other planets in our vast universe could not exist without God's creative intervention.

I'm sure you do think that but where is your evidence or reasoning?

[Alan Burns]

.... or even "Douglas Adams's puddle" to see where you went wrong.

How does the complexity of a puddle compare to a human being?  It is a very poor argument

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So where do I find this "overwhelming evidence" with regard to the rest of the universe outside our little planet of life we call earth?

You don't need to. Gravity for example has huge explanatory power for every bit of the universe we've been able to examine so far. You might well say something like, "but it's not impossible that there's a bit we haven't found yet where stuff falls sideways", which would be true but only in the trivial sense that we cannot know that anything is impossible.

Your big mistake here is to jump from anything being possible so something being probable.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How does the complexity of a puddle compare to a human being?  It is a very poor argument

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? It's an analogy, and it's a good one because it illustrates succinctly the mistake of thinking that the universe fits you rather than that you fit the universe.

Good grief man - could you at least try to think before posting again?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#15704

.... or even "Douglas Adams's puddle" to see where you went wrong.

How does the complexity of a puddle compare to a human being?  It is a very poor argument

Indeed, more so because of its circularity (assumes the conclusion of that for the point it is trying to make).

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? It's an analogy, and it's a good one because it illustrates succinctly the mistake of thinking that the universe fits you rather than that you fit the universe.

Then you need to demonstrate as objective fact that what you are claiming is true.

Your positive claim. You prove it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Indeed, more so because of its circularity (assumes the conclusion of that for the point it is trying to make).

Indeed not - AB misses the point entirely, and there is no circularity.

My advice to you is the same as that I just gave to AB - try thinking before posting.

[BeRational]

Sword,

Indeed not - AB misses the point entirely, and there is no circularity.

My advice to you is the same as that I just gave to AB - try thinking before posting.

I think you ask too much of both of them!

[Stranger]

Indeed, more so because of its circularity (assumes the conclusion of that for the point it is trying to make).

Oh do try to keep up! The point is that there is no evidence that we were an intended outcome and plenty that we were not. The puddle illustrates the problem of starting from an unjustified assumption.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then you need to demonstrate as objective fact that what you are claiming is true.

Your positive claim. You prove it.

Dear god man - are you unwell or something? Adams's puddle is an analogy. Are you seriously suggesting that I need to "prove" that water flows into the hole available for it and not than that the earth shapes itself around the water?

[Alan Burns]

Sword,

Dear god man - are you unwell or something? Adams's puddle is an analogy. Are you seriously suggesting that I need to "prove" that water flows into the hole available for it and not than that the earth shapes itself around the water?

The puddle is a trivial example because the behaviour of elements in it are entirely defined by applying a few simple rules of nature.

[Gordon]

#15704
Indeed, more so because of its circularity (assumes the conclusion of that for the point it is trying to make).

If you must dabble in anything remotely philosophical you really do need to do some background reading. That way you might understand when accusation of circularity is justified, since you've just demonstrated you really haven't a clue. The 'puddle' is an analogy, which you clearly don't understand. 

[Gordon]

The puddle is a trivial example because the behaviour of elements in it are entirely defined by applying a few simple rules of nature.

Whoosh!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The puddle is a trivial example because the behaviour of elements in it are entirely defined by applying a few simple rules of nature.

It's a freakin' ANALOGY you banana.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Dear god man - are you unwell or something? Adams's puddle is an analogy. Are you seriously suggesting that I need to "prove" that water flows into the hole available for it and not than that the earth shapes itself around the water?

Your claim, underlined in the quote below:

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? It's an analogy, and it's a good one because it illustrates succinctly the mistake of thinking that the universe fits you rather than that you fit the universe.

prove that it is a mistake to think this way. Your assertion, you prove it!

[floo]

I think it is highly likely that other intelligent life forms on other planets in our vast universe could not exist without God's creative intervention.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think the Biblical god is a remotely credible entity. It has all the worst human characteristics, but none of the best.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

prove that it is a mistake to think this way. Your assertion, you prove it!

Look, I realise that thinking isn’t your long suit but really?

First, science demonstrates rather than “proves”.

Second, that thinking the universe fits us is a mistake is demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence of evolution. You as I understand it dismiss that evidence, so any “proof” you demand is impossible for you. Fortunately though those who actually understand the subject and work in the field (for example by studying the history of mitochondrial DNA) have more than enough evidence to make the case. 

[Gordon]

prove that it is a mistake to think this way. Your assertion, you prove it!

,
You do realise that 'prove' is a term best used with caution, especially in relation to science.

[SusanDoris]

Ssword of the Spirit

May I offer some advice? I have learnt quite a lot about philosophy since members here first posted on the BBC R/E boards, but I do not attempt to use such knowledge unless I am quite clear about whether it is appropriate to use it in a post. I recommend this to you to avoid having errors pointed out to you.

Your quoting of sequences of other posts seems to indicate that you under-estimate the intelligence of those who do, in fact, know their philosophy.

[Rhiannon]

How does the complexity of a puddle compare to a human being?  It is a very poor argument

Sorry, but that made me laugh.

[Stranger]

Your claim, underlined in the quote below:prove that it is a mistake to think this way. Your assertion, you prove it!

The use of the word "prove" rather suggests that you don't understand what you are asking. However, either you accept the copious evidence for evolution or you don't.

If you do, then it should be apparent that we evolved to fit the environment and if you wish to posit some deliberate design or purpose, then that is your assertion, which would need additional evidence.

If you don't, then it's obvious that your position has nothing at all to do with any circularity of reasoning on behalf of others, but is actually based on a massive denial of reality.

[torridon]

Your observation that complex things derive from simpler things I assume is based on the formation of life on this planet.  But this may not be a universal truth.  ...

Not just from evidence but from logic. Evidence backs up the logic, for sure - we note that ecosystems derive from biological systems which derive from molecular biology which derives from biochemistry which derives from atomic matter which derives subatomic particles which derive from ..... etc. At each stage increasing complexity is founded upon simpler underlying arrangements.  This is at the heart of why god beliefs are irrational, they ignore not just evidence, but logic, ultimately.  To claim that all this complexity derives ultimately from something even more complex is nonesensical, it would be like claiming that small numbers are in principle actually made of lots of big numbers, it is an inversion of logic.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's a freakin' ANALOGY you banana.

But it is a poor analogy because there is a very logical reason why the puddle fits the hole.

[Stranger]

But it is a poor analogy because there is a very logical reason why the puddle fits the hole.

That's actually why it's a good analogy.