Uyi Iredia:

I know. Just don't say the term God is ambiguous. It isn't in this context.

Uyi Iredia:
And what else can 'begins to exist' mean ? Cause is a condition necessary for another to take place. Your definition is flawed because time isn't an object and can't precede itself.

Uyi Iredia:
That is strongly suggested. I believe the phrase 'massive evidence for evolution' is known to you.

Uyi Iredia:

In the OP I replied. I coukd be wrong, of course, but you'll have to show how.

Uyi Iredia:
What is clear is that you are dull and need to nderstand the concept of taste (see Wikipedia) to see that my point was valid.

Mr anony:
This is just you beating about the bush and you know it. You have already conceded that the laws defining how the universe behaves do not exist necessarily. You wouldn't have made the contention "if the universe had been any other way" if you thought the universe existed necessarily. Not only that, you have also conceded that the universe began to exist at some point.

Mr anony:
Now let me ask you again and this time pointblank. [size=13pt]Does the universe exist necessarily in it's current form and function? Yes or no.[/size]

And just so you don't misunderstand me, by "form" I mean - the way it appears, and by "function" I mean - the way it behaves

Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call

Mr anony:
I have read it and I think you have missed my point but just to be sure I got what you were talking about, by "chaos" you mean something like this?

The movement of a double pendulum.

Kay 17: @anony

Your double pendulum diagram shows a good degree of symmetry, perfect lines and angles. If you can notice on a plane, some intersecting points are arranged to form a curve.

thehomer: Where exactly did I make these concessions?

I don't know.

I was making the point which you missed. I said the universe had chaos inbuilt. You asked for a reason for this conclusion and I presented it.

What I showed you was that however the universe turned out, you would still have given the same answer to these very different questions and that means your answer which tries to explain it all actually explains nothing.

Now can you tell me who created the moon?

Kay 17: @anony

Your double pendulum diagram shows a good degree of symmetry, perfect lines and angles. If you can notice on a plane, some intersecting points are arranged to form a curve.

Kay 17: That's what most theists say. Deepsight especially has claimed God the simplest entity, such that he is an accumulation of parts and causes.

However complexity prima facie indicates causation.

Kay 17: @anony
Sorry, you got it right, God is not an accumulation of parts and causes. A mistake.

In furtherance with what I said, the Universe (by theists' argument) is a product of a mind. A mind is complex and by such nature, have a cause.

The conflict arises in stating God is uncaused in spite of complexity necessary in a mind and still insisting he is simple is a contradiction.

God and Chance are being measured by the yardstick of simplicity, in that regard, they are comparable.

Deep Sight:

And in the case of the universe, only one with a bird's eye view of it would see the super-structure as it really is and really moves. People inside it can only see small bits of movement, which of course, some may conclude appears chaotic to them.

Kay 17:

I totally agree the universe is orderly. I see a glass falling and shattered to pieces as orderly, cos it dutifully obeys the applicable physical laws. If the glass doesn't shatter, then it is disorderly without everything being equal.

Also note: that none of us has a bird eye view of the Universe, we merely use our minds, which adequately does the job.

Mr anony:
Lol. of course you don't

Mr anony:
I got all that. What I am asking is whether that diagram is an example of what you meant when you were talking about chaos because it was one of the examples given in the article you presented.

by the way this is a summary of chaos as per your article:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. - Edward Lorenz

Do you agree with it?

Mr anony:
You can't make this counterargument because it presupposes that the universe does not exist necessarily and you just said you don't know. Do you know now?

Mr anony:
I've told you who created the universe. Go figure

thehomer:
So will you show me where I made this concession?

I agree with the fact that chaos is an integral part of the universe if you do not agree with that fact after reading that article, then simply say so rather than rambling on about definitions. The article is more informative than a definition. And that is the point I was making.

I don't have to know in order to make that argument. It does not presuppose that about the universe, it demonstrates the fact that your so-called answer tries to explain everything.

You're basically making the same mistake you made when you were confusing logical possibilities with physical possibilities. I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible. Try not to keep confusing these two issues.

This makes no sense. Even if your God created the universe, it doesn't mean he also created the moon otherwise, one can also say he created a gun.

thehomer:
Did I say it was?

Did I say you said it was ?

[quote author=thehomer]In that case, the reason my rejection of the definition is pretty clear. I didn't say time was an object. What I meant was something being temporally preceded by another in time.

Neither did I say you said time is an object, your definition of time mase it an object. I think your definition is flawed. First 'temporally preceded' is a tautology, both refer to time. Second events which precede

If someone said that, please show this otherwise be silent on it.

thehomer:
Did I say it was?

thehomer: In that case, the reason my rejection of the definition is pretty clear. I didn't say time was an object. What I meant was something being temporally preceded by another in time.

thehomer: If someone said that, please show this otherwise be silent on it.

thehomer:

If you could be wrong, why didn't you take the time to find out whether or not you were wrong before speaking? You're now asking me to demonstrate your own point to you? This is ridiculous. If you cannot, simply say so.

thehomer: This is why I say you don't know how to have a reasonable conversation. The unintelligent laziness demonstrated by this response clearly shows your poor reasoning skills. If you usually go around comparing taste by eating the Eiffel Tower, then the problems you face are deep indeed.

Image123: Ahhhhhh this is where the intellectuals aree.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

GeneralShepherd:

Image123 don't you think its inappropriate to quote the bible when arguing with someone that doesn't believe in the bible.

Even Deepsight is not a christian.

Mr anony:
You made it when you argued "if the universe turned out any other way". Well, it doesn't matter now as you have said "you don't know?"

Mr anony:
Lolol, you have not said whether you agree or not, well, no matter instead of beating about the bush, let me address your question of chaos:
The problem is that you have not used chaos in the sense that I was using it i.e. I argued that the universe follows a set of specific physical laws such that we can accurately predict what should happen next given the initial conditions. Chaos in the sense I meant would be a situation where the universe will not function according to any laws such that we can predict what will happen next.

Mr anony:
The article you linked didn't provide such a situation. In fact it agrees that if we knew the precise initial conditions that lead to an action, we would be able to predict that action accurately however where we can't precisely measure the initial conditions leading to the action, we would miss it by a very wide mark. Your double pendulum example for instance follows the physical laws of the universe to the letter and hence is not chaotic in that sense. If we could freeze each moment and measure precisely the exact energy and force at that moment, we would accurately predict exactly where the pendulum will swing next. The only reason it looks random is because we cannot adequately measure it's movement.
You have failed to present any example of chaos that violates physical laws of the universe

Mr anony:
Lololol, To say that a thing exists necessarily is to say that there is no logical possibility that such a thing would be other than it is i.e. if such a thing were any different, it would be logically incoherent.
It is either you know or you don't know. You can't make this argument you are trying to make by claiming ignorance.

Mr anony:
Lol, let's see: so God creates a universe and sets certain physical laws in place such that space time and matter can form and behave in a certain specific way. The moon is one of such matter and behaves according to the physical laws set by God. The creation of a gun involved another mind entirely called man. So if you know of another mind other than God that specifically created the moon, feel free to bring such a mind forward.

Mr anony:
By the way, don't forget to respond to this post

Mr anony:
I think I can almost get what you are saying but seeing as you have the remarkable ability of being deliberately vague, I'll push you to clarify further. As per the bold. Must you know precisely what the end to be achieved is in order to know if it is a design or not?

I have already answered the same question here (fourth paragraph).

Uyi Iredia:

Did I say you said it was ?



Neither did I say you said time is an object, your definition of time makes it an object. I think your definition is flawed. First 'temporally preceded' is a tautology, both refer to time. Second, an event can be preceded by one which isn't the cause e.g. thunder before rain, having $ex before dying.



Just Google 'massive evidence for evolution'. But of course, you would be too lazy to do that.

Uyi Iredia:

What makes you think I didn't do that ? I answered your question so what's to be demonstrated is not my point but a possible refutation. Now quit being a lazy bum.



This is the mental sloppiness expected from someone who intellectually ma$turbäte$ by evading simple, articulated points. Read the article on taste. Licking will suffice, though it could be eaten.

GeneralShepherd:

Image123 don't you think its inappropriate to quote the bible when arguing with someone that doesn't believe in the bible.

Even Deepsight is not a christian.

thehomer:
It does because you're still making the same mistake that has been corrected.

Is that something physically possible?

Is it possible for anything in the universe to violate the physical laws of the universe?

It looks like you're still confused about the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities. I don't have to know whether or not something is physically possible in order to make a conditional statement about a logical possibility.

Based on what you've just said, God didn't create the moon while some man created a gun. The moon came about maybe while God was asleep.

thehomer:

Generally, how we tell the difference is that works of intelligent agents are tools that are used to achieve a certain end while works of unintelligent agents don't have such ends. And these tools are often assembled in a way that is unlikely to occur by chance.

Now can you answer your own questions?

thehomer:

Push all you want. No you don't have to know precisely what the end is but that isn't all I said about it.

But, based on what you said, the sun is designed even the electron is designed and once again, in your attempt to explain it all, you've explained nothing.