Watchmaker Theory

[shmogie]

Ok let me explain this to you as you are obviously an ignorant fool.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all the energy in the universe will become heat (entropy) but that does not mean it will be destroyed after all the law of conservations of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

So therefore eventually all energy will be in the form known as heat.

Now

If you want to make anymore ridiculous claims bring me some proof or I will simply have to ignore your ignorant ***.

Why must you call people names who disagree with you ? Are you threatened that much ? Here is something you can deny also, entropy in a cosmic model will ensure ultimately equal distribution at the point of very slightly above absolute 0. Not a quote, just my statement, based on fact, verify or not I don't care, vilify or not, I don't care about that either

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting, I am not demonizing science................. I am simply demonstrating that science is predisposed to only consider material causation and never anything else, the "faith" of science is solely vested in the material. Now some, when confronted with evidence that the material model does'nt work find their faith wavering, and they become heretics, and objective in at least considering other possibilities. I will provide you a quotation from one. Yes, you provided a quotation, for which I am appreciative, but you did try and make it say something it did not. You were clinging to your faith in trying to tell me that through the known physical laws of quantum mechanics and mathematical equations the unknown singularity that existed before the BB is being defined. That my friend is simply not true. There are opinions, nothing more. "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions { of scientists to the evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning] They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of material phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science , it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event, every effect must have it's cause, there is no first cause,,,,,,, This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a discovery under which the known laws of physic's are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications he would be traumatized " Robert Jastrow PhD, Astronomer, Cosmologist, agnostic " The Enchanted loom, Mind in the Universe" 1981, Simon and Shuster I know I am frustrating you, but that is not my intent. You have asked for evidence and I will provide it. However, my education and experience is in the law, so I know a bit about presenting evidence, and putting together cases for litigation. When you are asked to present evidence for consideration, you have been wise to determine biases in those who will judge the evidence, You can't wait for me to present something as evidence that you believe you can demolish, I understand that, but I am stating flat out that you are biased and contrary to the "jury instructions " to be objective and allow the evidence to lead to a conclusion that is possible, reasonable, and fits the facts of the case, you will not. You will not because regardless of the evidence a certain possible conclusion is not possible to you. The deck is stacked, you know it as do I. So, if we proceed on the issue of Divine creation, under the "watchmaker theory' thread which I am happy to do, I will object and point out where the judge ( you) are unfair as to the evidence. I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. Rebut if you choose

Science is predisposed to measure that which is measurable.

The rest of the post appears to just be an attempt to turn science into religion.

 

[Shad]

Once again we are trying to use worldly, universal logic to pin down a being that is neither of this world or this universe.

It is those making the claim for God that are doing so. So if our language is not suitable for this dialogue it does nothing to undermine my view but the theists. This is no more than admitting the words attached to God are meaningless as any meaning does not apply to God.

For all we know this creator is in a perpetual state of creation, by its very nature, and there are trillions and trillions of universes, or, simply, the inferred logic related to change simply doesn't apply.

Speculation used to support more speculation

Once again, reference points in this universe may mean totally different outside this universe, or, not exist at all. Lewis Caroll, addressing things " down the rabbit hole"where up is down and right is left, and red is blue" makes the point clearly. There is nothing, logic, laws, mathematics, nothing, that need be forged in steel, outside the universe

Amusing coming from a theist which already holds a forged in steel view of God. Holds the view that humans are worthless while God has infinite worth. Special pleading.

 

[McBell]

I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. Rebut if you choose

As soon as you present something to refute.
You are the one making the claims.
It is on you to support said claims.
If you can not or will not support your claims, there is no need to take your claims seriously.

 

[shmogie]

You know nothing of what I believe, you assume you do, nothing more. So then rather than speculate like me, I assume you know what exists outside the universe either before the big bang or right now. If you do, then a mental health professional might be of help to you. I find the arrogance of many atheists, including you, also to be amusing, your smugness takes you to the heights of folly, to the point that you believe you know what lesser beings believe, when you in fact know nothing, The emperor has no clothes, you should get dressed

 

[shmogie]

As soon as you present something to refute.
You are the one making the claims.
It is on you to support said claims.
If you can not or will not support your claims, there is no need to take your claims seriously.

We can assume then that you accept statement one as fact

 

[shmogie]

We can assume then that you accept statement one as fact

Note : references to beilief were directed to Shad, not Metis

 

[McBell]

We can assume then that you accept statement one as fact

There is your second problem.
Making assumptions about what others think/believe.

How quickly you forget your own post #225...

 

[shmogie]

It is those making the claim for God that are doing so. So if our language is not suitable for this dialogue it does nothing to undermine my view but the theists. This is no more than admitting the words attached to God are meaningless as any meaning does not apply to God.



Speculation used to support more speculation



Amusing coming from a theist which already holds a forged in steel view of God. Holds the view that humans are worthless while God has infinite worth. Special pleading.

I said nothing about language, please read more carefully. The English language is infinitely well suited foe describing things that can be known,. things that can be described, unfortunately, no verbal gymnastics can be used to describe what is unknowable

There is your second problem.
Making assumptions about what others think/believe.

How quickly you forget your own post #225...

So then, the whole process breaks down, in law, this is caused jury nullification. The failure of those who claim to judge not, to do so.In your case, it appears the prejudice I spoke of, or, if you will, your beliefs constrain you from even acknowledging a possibility you find repugnant. Verifying the point I have been making all along, material science and it's acolytes, for all their boasts of "finding the truth", simply have no desire to even consider an alternate view because of prejudice and a condescending attitude.. The jury is dismissed, the judge has been censured, Counsel gathers his case, recognizing that he cannot get a fair consideration of anything he may present, only obfuscation, and he departs for another venue. The only thing proven is that judges and juries in this jurisdiction cannot be objective, not an unexpected outcome. Adieu

 

[metis]

Interesting, I am not demonizing science................. I am simply demonstrating that science is predisposed to only consider material causation and never anything else, the "faith" of science is solely vested in the material. Now some, when confronted with evidence that the material model does'nt work find their faith wavering, and they become heretics, and objective in at least considering other possibilities. I will provide you a quotation from one. Yes, you provided a quotation, for which I am appreciative, but you did try and make it say something it did not. You were clinging to your faith in trying to tell me that through the known physical laws of quantum mechanics and mathematical equations the unknown singularity that existed before the BB is being defined. That my friend is simply not true. There are opinions, nothing more. "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions { of scientists to the evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning] They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of material phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science , it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event, every effect must have it's cause, there is no first cause,,,,,,, This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a discovery under which the known laws of physic's are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications he would be traumatized " Robert Jastrow PhD, Astronomer, Cosmologist, agnostic " The Enchanted loom, Mind in the Universe" 1981, Simon and Shuster I know I am frustrating you, but that is not my intent. You have asked for evidence and I will provide it. However, my education and experience is in the law, so I know a bit about presenting evidence, and putting together cases for litigation. When you are asked to present evidence for consideration, you have been wise to determine biases in those who will judge the evidence, You can't wait for me to present something as evidence that you believe you can demolish, I understand that, but I am stating flat out that you are biased and contrary to the "jury instructions " to be objective and allow the evidence to lead to a conclusion that is possible, reasonable, and fits the facts of the case, you will not. You will not because regardless of the evidence a certain possible conclusion is not possible to you. The deck is stacked, you know it as do I. So, if we proceed on the issue of Divine creation, under the "watchmaker theory' thread which I am happy to do, I will object and point out where the judge ( you) are unfair as to the evidence. I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. Rebut if you choose

You again misrepresented where I was coming from with some of your claims above, plus you continue to stereotype scientists. I would think that you might actually at least somewhat defer to an extent when you are told your wrong by someone who has been in science for roughly 50 years, but your arrogance prevents you from doing that. You are being "intellectually" dishonest, and you are simply no longer a person that I want to discuss anything with as there are plenty of people here who are not self-centered nor know-it-alls, especially in the arena of science.

Because I don't want to waste any more time, I will put you on an ignore list. I truly hope some day that your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, will eventually bring you down to Earth and influence you to be much more honest, open-minded, and compassionate person.

 

[shmogie]

Science is predisposed to measure that which is measurable.

The rest of the post appears to just be an attempt to turn science into religion.

I see, and science isn't a religion, based on faith. Consider this, life exists that is measurable, quantifiable and, observable. science tells us that this life came about by rocks, being inundated by rain, creating a primordial sea, in which non living matter runoff from the rocks is somehow exposed to something that caused this primordial stew to combine these inorganic molecules into life, not only life, but life capable of reproduction. This process, taught as fact, has never been observed, has never been recreated in a lab, has never been measured, and the process is completely unknown. Nevertheless, by faith, science tells us this is fact, based on no evidence. Belief, the result of faith in an unprovable concept. The definition of religion that many hold

 

[shmogie]

You again misrepresented where I was coming from with some of your claims above, plus you continue to stereotype scientists. I would think that you might actually at least somewhat defer to an extent when you are told your wrong by someone who has been in science for roughly 50 years, but your arrogance prevents you from doing that. You are being "intellectually" dishonest, and you are simply no longer a person that I want to discuss anything with as there are plenty of people here who are not self-centered nor know-it-alls, especially in the arena of science.

Because I don't want to waste any more time, I will put you on an ignore list. I truly hope some day that your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, will eventually bring you down to Earth and influence you to be much more honest, open-minded, and compassionate person.

I defer when evidence compels me to do so. Proving your prejudice makes me uncompassionate, an astounding conclusion. I too will ignore you, for when you back yourself into a corner your efforts to get out are smoke and mirrors, nothing more

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

These kinds of comments are proof that we need better education systems.

I wonder if you put say 100 000 watches in a cement mixer, (sans cement) then turned it on
how long it would take before it happened that due to random collisions,
the watches evolved into self-reproducing conscious devices?

Devices that would be able to construct spaceships and launch themselves into orbit?
If the time is more than the age of the universe, then how many cement mixers would it take?

If the number of cement mixers took up an entire planet, then how many planets?
If that was more than the number of planets in the universe, then how many universes?

 

[Neo Deist]

Ok let me explain this to you as you are obviously an ignorant fool.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all the energy in the universe will become heat (entropy) but that does not mean it will be destroyed after all the law of conservations of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

So therefore eventually all energy will be in the form known as heat.

Now

If you want to make anymore ridiculous claims bring me some proof or I will simply have to ignore your ignorant ***.

Oh no! I might be ignored by a random internet poster...whatever shall I do?!

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

you were advised to read "a brief history of time" by Hawking..
An intro to the subject can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity and, therefore, there would be no way to transmit any radiation from before the Big Bang to the present day. However, evidence for the existence of an initial singularity, and the Big Bang theory itself, comes in the form of the cosmic microwave background and the continued expansion of the Universe

Neither example given are scientific articles. Please learn what a scientific article is and try again.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I wonder if you put say 100 000 watches in a cement mixer, (sans cement) then turned it on
how long it would take before it happened that due to random collisions,
the watches evolved into self-reproducing conscious devices?

Devices that would be able to construct spaceships and launch themselves into orbit?
If the time is more than the age of the universe, then how many cement mixers would it take?

If the number of cement mixers took up an entire planet, then how many planets?
If that was more than the number of planets in the universe, then how many universes?

And this further proves my point.

Thinking that watches have the mechanisms or the ability to reproduce in this hypothetical scenario.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Oh no! I might be ignored by a random internet poster...whatever shall I do?!

Could you provide an intellectual retort?

PS: I should not have personally insulted you and I apologize for doing so.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Why must you call people names who disagree with you ? Are you threatened that much ? Here is something you can deny also, entropy in a cosmic model will ensure ultimately equal distribution at the point of very slightly above absolute 0. Not a quote, just my statement, based on fact, verify or not I don't care, vilify or not, I don't care about that either

I have apologized for that action, I was under a lot of stress but that does not excuse the issue.

No that stamenent is correct.

 

[Neo Deist]

Could you provide an intellectual retort?

Yes.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes.

Would you care to provide it?