Best one sentence summation of how I feel, ever.

[pharmakos]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's common sense really. Everything man made required consciousness to create. Every bee hive requires a bee to have made it. Have you ever seen anything that man has made form randomly on it's own? In order to create something it has to be designed. Only a conscious intelligence can design something. A pile of bricks will never turn into a house unless a conscious person comes along and designs and builds that house. Even in a trillion years those bricks would never just pick themselves up and turn into a house. This proves that time is irrelevant when discussing things like evolution because time cannot cause impossible things to occur.

still a real big logical leap between "a human has to make a house out of the bricks" and "everything that exists was created through consciousness"

i'm trying to help you out here. you might be right, but you still have some logical leaps that need to be explained.

missing links if you will.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by pharmakos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

missing links

I lol'd

[Illuzionz]

Originally Posted by pharmakos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

still a real big logical leap between "a human has to make a house out of the bricks" and "everything that exists was created through consciousness"

i'm trying to help you out here. you might be right, but you still have some logical leaps that need to be explained.

missing links if you will.

No missing links at all really. It's actually common sense from this point on. If at one point something didn't exist it had to be created. Anything that has been created requires a creator. A creator can only be a conscious being because only conscious beings are capable of thinking and creating. No evidence exists to the contrary so until there is I'll stick with the facts.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's common sense really. Everything man made required consciousness to create. Every bee hive requires a bee to have made it. Have you ever seen anything that man has made form randomly on it's own? In order to create something it has to be designed. Only a conscious intelligence can design something. A pile of bricks will never turn into a house unless a conscious person comes along and designs and builds that house. Even in a trillion years those bricks would never just pick themselves up and turn into a house. This proves that time is irrelevant when discussing things like evolution because time cannot cause impossible things to occur.

Paraphrased: Everything made by man requires a man to be made.

It's a rather poor version of the watchmaker analogy.

From wikipedia, David Hume's criticism:

"Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?"

The watchmaker analogy is regurgitated ad nauseum and should be replied to with a quote, really.

[DrKvothe]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Paraphrased: Everything made by man requires a man to be made.

It's a rather poor version of the watchmaker analogy.

From wikipedia, David Hume's criticism:

"Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?"

The watchmaker analogy is regurgitated ad nauseum and should be replied to with a quote, really.

Beautifully reasoned argument. Snowflakes are a great example. I was leaning towards describing self-assembling materials to demonstrate that physical laws could assemble complexity from simplicity in a predictable fashion, but I was having a hard time figuring out how to dumb it down enough for Illusionz to understand with his 1st grade education.

[Illuzionz]

Kinda cool how the troll calls me a troll. Typical bait n switch troll. Predictable and boring. How many people were injured in Russian meteor incident? It was 3 right? Only 3 people got injured, correct? Can you please kill yourself?

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

bait n switch

Idontthinkthatmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.jpg

[pharmakos]

Originally Posted by Illuzionz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kinda cool how the troll calls me a troll. Typical bait n switch troll. Predictable and boring. How many people were injured in Russian meteor incident? It was 3 right? Only 3 people got injured, correct? Can you please kill yourself?

did god create that meteor? =p

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by pharmakos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

did god create that meteor? =p

Naw dude, he created the earth in 7 days. How long do you think all that window dressing like meteor's and shit would take?

Dude isn't around anymore cause he has to keep making planets and shit we have to discover.

Mystery!

[Illuzionz]

No, it does actually. Please, tell me again, 3 people were injured in Russia right? Wasn't like 1,500 but only 3? Correct? Can you go google it to make sure plz?