Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: ½ Pint Jars

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinechemkid
Be excellent toeach other

Registered: 06/21/02
Posts: 506
Loc: Between a rock and a hard...
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Does contrivance necessitate a contriver?
    #816185 - 08/13/02 10:07 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Surely you can see where this post is heading

The argument goes like this:

Part I:

If you were walking along a beach and as you were kicking and stirring up the sand you uncover a gold pocketwatch. You examine it and observe all the inner complexities and marvel at it's existence. It is so fascinating to you and you are left to conclude:

It was obviously made by man. Such contrivance necessitates a contriver. Surely it couldn't just come into being by random chance and luck.

Part II:

Imagine the human body. Imagine just a single anatomical feature of the human form, ie. the eye. It alone is infinitely more complex than a gold watch. There are still to this day many intricasies of the human eye that are not understood, where as the watch is completely understood and duplicated on a daily basis. So if random chance, the winds, temperature, luck, pressure, whatever can not forge a gold watch.....I ask you.......how can it forge life?

The human form necessitates a contriver.....................namely, GOD!!!

Let's keep it civil........I love good debate so lets go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRebelSteve33
Amateur Mycologist
Male

Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 3,774
Loc: Arizona
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #816304 - 08/13/02 11:12 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Very thought provoking!

To me, God is not a person, being, or entity in any way shape or form. God is simply Nature. Nature created us. Not necessarily because it wanted to. A lot of things in Nature just happen. Maybe it created us just because it could; not forseeing the drastic repurcussions. Maybe someday we will mean the salvation of Nature, and therefore Nature needed to create us because we can do things with our minds and bodies that Nature can't. It's only Nature, after all

Nature doesn't need a gold watch.


--------------------
Namaste.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMystical_Craven
mentally illpsychonaught

Registered: 06/16/02
Posts: 439
Loc: Earth
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #816351 - 08/13/02 11:42 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Alright, before I even get to your post I just have to state I love your title. "Be excellent to eachother" That really is a dman good phrase isn't it?

Anwho -
To answer your question: yes and no

I say that just because something is infinately intricate, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created that way. But I certainly don't think cosmic winds blowing around haphazardly could have produced something like life purely by chance...surely there must be some reason why certain things come together the way they do. Something that comes to mind is an analogy I once heard about a jar of marbles that had exactly 1000 red marbles on the bottom and 1000 black ones on top. The idea was that if you began vigorously shaking the jar, sooner or later it would reach a point where all the red marbles would be evenly distributed amungst the black ones (even if only for a moment) and that if you continued to shake it sooner or later the jar would have to some day return to it's original state (again, even if only for a moment) Now this may make sense statistically (e.g. given enough time anything is possible regardless how unlikely or improbable) but from my observations this world isn't quite as simple as that. We are not an infinate amount of matter floating around aimlessly, there is structure to this world. This structure is what sets things apart. A water particle is not the same as a hydrogen peroxide particle, even thought they are essientially made up of the same two elements. Surely there must be some sort of reason why some hydrogen atoms pair up with oxygen and some choose instead to take things two on one. Why does this work like that? Is it purely about electronic balance as science has lead us to believe, or could there be a deeper underlying meaning behind it? I don't know, nor do I claim to even have a theory about that one. I do, however, feel like there is some sort of underlying principle governing the nature of existence. There are just too many unexplained things I've seen in this world that make me want to believe there is a spiritual side to things. So in that aspect: yes, I believe there is some sort of contriver. But do I give this contriver a title or a life force of it's own? No. If you want to call it God (as sometimes I do just for easy reference) then that's cool with me...in which case my answer should be simply yes. But I thought I should specifically add that 'no' up there because an unequivical 'yes' might lead others to assume that the 'god' I believe in is the same as the version of 'god' that is usually envoked by his very name


--------------------


"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go..." T.S. Eliot


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #820096 - 08/16/02 11:03 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #820948 - 08/16/02 02:46 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

Sorry, couldn't resist.

To compare a watch to an organic organism is spurious. The watch cannot come into existence without a manufacturer. The laws of physics prevent it. An organic entity needs no manufacturer. Its only "manufacturers" were its progenitors. Inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are two entirely different kettles of fish.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRevelation

 User Gallery

Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 6,130
Loc: heart cave
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #821086 - 08/16/02 03:31 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god...


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Revelation]
    #821132 - 08/16/02 03:39 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god...

Nor does it mean there is one.

Chemkid's implication was that the mere existence of a complex living organism is, in and of itself, proof of a creator.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (08/16/02 03:41 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821166 - 08/16/02 03:49 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Well if your talking about life itself, I think that Nature was involved in that...

But if your talking about how differently we evolved from the rest of the animal kingdom, then I think that another race of beings* was involved with that...

*(I won't call them extraterrestrials, because they very well may have been terrestrial.)


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemirror_saw
journeyman
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 59
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821340 - 08/16/02 04:39 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Nor does it mean there is one.

In this universe, planets and stars form and some (at least one) planet(s) are capable of producing life. It's unlikely that the world would be this way by chance if there is just one universe with randomly "chosen" laws of physics. It has been theorized that there are millions of universes (existing at the same or different time dosn't really matter as far as I can see) and only in a small number would conditions be just right to produce life. This wouldn't seem to explain why there isn't just nothing. no life, no universe, no possibilty of a universe, just nothing at all. In fact it wouldn't even really be nothing, it would be beyond something or nothing. As this beyond is beyond all such things perhaps it's no great problem somehow to create something. perhaps the something it creates is an indication of its inherent qualities, not that i'm sure it has any inherent qualities or anything else because it's hard to know when your dealing with nothing (or something beyond nothing)

I think I need to get some sleep.





Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821390 - 08/16/02 04:59 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Imagine the human body.
May I imagine a young, nubile female in this thought-experiment?

Imagine just a single anatomical feature of the human form...
May I choose a different body part?

It alone is infinitely more complex than a gold watch.
*sigh* It didn't take long for you to stray from the path. Poetic license is NOT allowed in logical debate. The eye is more complex than a gold watch in some ways, less in others, but hardly "infinitely" more. Exaggeration never helps one's case.

There are still to this day many intricasies of the human eye that are not understood...
Lack of understanding points to what exactly? The simple molecule of H2O is not fully understood, so what?

where as the watch is completely understood and duplicated on a daily basis.
Here we go with your classic "strawman" - set 'em up, mow'em down. Of course we understand tools that we build.

So if random chance, the winds, temperature, luck, pressure, whatever can not forge a gold watch.....I ask you.......how can it forge life?
Lack of understanding once again does not require that one adopt a myth. What is the human need to fill a mysterious void with something, anything - even if wrong? When people did not understand the basics of pathogens, they quickly adopted the idea that the ill person was taken over by demons.

The human form necessitates a contriver.....................namely, GOD!!!
Your "ergo" is a huge hyper-jump in logic leaving out many intermediate steps and does not necessarily follow.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821405 - 08/16/02 05:04 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Poetic license is NOT allowed in logical debate.

It is for me.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821421 - 08/16/02 05:09 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Your "ergo" is a huge hyper-jump in logic leaving out many intermediate steps and does not necessarily follow.

It is called extrapolation and is frequently used in philosophy. You dismiss this way too lightly. I expected more than a simple brushing aside, but your attitude precludes rather than encourages further discussion.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #821436 - 08/16/02 05:14 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

To compare a watch to an organic organism is spurious. The watch cannot come into existence without a manufacturer. The laws of physics prevent it. An organic entity needs no manufacturer. Its only "manufacturers" were its progenitors. Inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are two entirely different kettles of fish.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Balderdash. Neither could I.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821451 - 08/16/02 05:19 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Actually I was encouraging him to fill in the missing intermediate steps, your apparent "cleverness" at parroting my words, notwithstanding.

If I find a bolt lying in the street, it is impossible to extraoplate that it came from a car. However, if I look at the engine block of my car and find an empty threaded hole, I could extrapolate that a bolt is missing.

Of coure you understand this and are just playing games for the sake of playing games rather than adding content.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821477 - 08/16/02 05:28 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Lack of understanding once again does not require that one adopt a myth. What is the human need to fill a mysterious void with something, anything - even if wrong?
Most people can't stand doubt and do not want to admit their ignorance, hence they 'take the leap of faith.' Problem solved, no doubt in their minds and a satisfaction of believing that they aren't ignorant. The reality is, we are all ignorant.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821494 - 08/16/02 05:34 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Of course I understand all of that.

Nevertheless I take umbrage at the notion of playing games merely for the sake I playing games. You are in no position to guess at the motivation of why I post what I post when I post it. You have chided others for doing so, so please don't be surprised to be chided in turn.

I parroted your words in an effort to play. That does not intimate that I am "playing games" in any other respect than word play. I did it to tease you. I teased you because I genuinely like you. Did it add content? No, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, it did not.

Must all my posts have content? That is a criterion I could never labor under. I assume you know that, but who am I to assume?


Strict dialectic without play or humor makes Jack a dull boy.

Call me Jack.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821500 - 08/16/02 05:36 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Look before you leap.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821507 - 08/16/02 05:37 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

The reality is, we are all ignorant.

I like da way u tink.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821532 - 08/16/02 05:47 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Relax bro, I like you too. I figure my content-to-post ratio is only about 18%. I was just playing back...

Now, back to the thread. The title is both a redundant and a rhetorical question, with the only possible answer being silence or "yes". This type of verbal "trickery" is poor argumentive style. However, the poster does not make a strong case that human being is, in fact, an invention or a planned device.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821601 - 08/16/02 06:17 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Relax bro, I like you too. I figure my content-to-post ratio is only about 18%. I was just playing back...

That's why I said, "Who am I to assume?" I was wondering if you were playing. (this darn medium...grumble grumble grumble) It is nice to know that there is reciprocity in this regard.

The title is both a redundant and a rhetorical question, with the only possible answer being silence or "yes". This type of verbal "trickery" is poor argumentive style. However, the poster does not make a strong case that human being is, in fact, an invention or a planned device.

Indeed. But that is what I have come to respect from this forum as a rule. I do not mind. It beats a sharp stick in the eye any day. Chemkid's idea is nothing new. Pascal looked at the universe and compared it to a watch which was more Cartesian ideology and a mechanical outlook on the cosmos than anything else. Nevertheless, as poor as Chemkid's version of it might be I find the overall idea to have merit. Pascals's watch analogy was, indeed, a poor analogy but not so with the cell. Whereas the cell was thought to have been a sack of water as far as fifty years ago, modern biology, and in particular, microbiology, has shown us that the cell is incredibly complex and I think the watch analogy fits it like duck in the water. Or something similar.

To me the idea that the complexity of a cell can be brought about by natural causes through evolution is preposterous. The link I provided earlier in the thread gives abundant evidence that the "theory" of evolution is incomplete at best and downright deceptive at worst.

Since this is not a "science" forum the discussion only approaches spirituality obliquely and it is the most banal dialectics I have ever endured. I probably will not post much in this thread but only snipe from time to time.

Cheers,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: ½ Pint Jars

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Does being truly good necessitate that one has a choice not to be good?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
deCypher 2,716 66 09/17/08 01:20 PM
by Lakefingers
* Being super-wealthy in a world with abysmal poverty: would you justify it in mind or spirit?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AsanteA 5,205 64 01/28/05 06:12 PM
by Paou
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,116 61 12/08/03 05:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Michel de Montaigne 'Of Cannibalism' CosmicJokeM 1,083 0 05/25/05 02:12 AM
by CosmicJoke
* Twelfth Planet Swami 789 3 12/12/01 10:57 AM
by Swami
* Ignorance: God's Gift To Kansas
( 1 2 3 all )
DiploidM 2,953 42 09/16/05 03:00 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Truth, Love and God
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ohmyradical 4,197 76 06/08/08 08:46 PM
by backfromthedead
* The Gaia Hypothesis...
( 1 2 all )
AbstractHarmonix 3,654 32 08/31/09 03:19 PM
by Cubers

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
3,857 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.099 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.