Why am I delusional?

[WarK]

I am not saying that the TOE evolution needs a supernatural designer for life to be explained. I am not even saying that a designer definitely exists. All I am saying is that the universe and life within it appears designed which implies a designer.

No, it implies that something made it look designed.

Something being a process. Again, tuxbox, TOE explains why life appears this way and how it happened without a designer. You put your designer where it isn't needed nor has it anything to do.

If you have more specific example of things you think couldn't have evolved naturally please share with us.

 

[Gnug215]

I am not saying that the TOE evolution needs a supernatural designer for life to be explained. I am not even saying that a designer definitely exists. All I am saying is that the universe and life within it appears designed which implies a designer.

Wouldn't you agree that it is difficult to truly, objective determine that this universe and life within it appears designed, seeing as the one making that claim is someone that is sitting within said universe, and being said life, determining from their point of view that they themselves appear designed?

Had we looked different, or lived in a different universe, had we not still be sitting there, saying that things appear designed? How can we not look at ourselves in some kind of marvel?

Again, I wouldn't call you delusional, but I think it is clear that you are inserting something into the picture you have of the world - something that your mind somehow desires of even "needs" in order to somehow satisfy those questions that the mind itself is perhaps unwillingly asking, simply as a by-product of existing in a universe where it has to perceive the world around it, and somehow make sense of it, because it would not be able to persist with a totally chaotic and meaningless perception.

I think that is something we all do at some level and to some degree, but there are different ways of doing it.

 

[tuxbox]

Something being a process. Again, tuxbox, TOE explains why life appears this way and how it happened without a designer. You put your designer where it isn't needed nor has it anything to do.

If you have more specific example of things you think couldn't have evolved naturally please share with us.

The TOE explains how life evolved and that is it. It is not concerned with anything other than that and I have never suggested that a magic sky god or a creator has guided it in any way, shape or form other than being responsible for creating the laws of nature that the universe seems to follow.

I will say it again and I do not know why I have to repeat myself so many times. I happen to see design when I look at the current evidence of the beginning of the universe and yes life itself. If I write a computer program to randomly self replicate its processes and to form new and improved processes, that does not mean I am guiding those processes. It just means that I wrote the original code with the laws in place and the program took over from there and follows those laws.

If you have more specific example of things you think couldn't have evolved naturally please share with us.

Here is the thing, I believe ALL living organisms evolved naturally. I do not believe any species just spontaneously appeared fully formed due to a supernatural god/creator.

 

[tuxbox]

Wouldn't you agree that it is difficult to truly, objective determine that this universe and life within it appears designed, seeing as the one making that claim is someone that is sitting within said universe, and being said life, determining from their point of view that they themselves appear designed?

Had we looked different, or lived in a different universe, had we not still be sitting there, saying that things appear designed? How can we not look at ourselves in some kind of marvel?

Again, I wouldn't call you delusional, but I think it is clear that you are inserting something into the picture you have of the world - something that your mind somehow desires of even "needs" in order to somehow satisfy those questions that the mind itself is perhaps unwillingly asking, simply as a by-product of existing in a universe where it has to perceive the world around it, and somehow make sense of it, because it would not be able to persist with a totally chaotic and meaningless perception.

I think that is something we all do at some level and to some degree, but there are different ways of doing it.

Yes, my beliefs are purely subjective and since this is the only universe that I am aware it is possible that I am seeing patterns and/or design when they may not be. Knowledge is subject to change as new information becomes available and I have definitely changed my beliefs many times in my 39 years of being alive. And my world views, opinions and beliefs will most definitely change in the future as I gather more info and insight.

 

[Gnug215]

Wouldn't you agree that it is difficult to truly, objective determine that this universe and life within it appears designed, seeing as the one making that claim is someone that is sitting within said universe, and being said life, determining from their point of view that they themselves appear designed?

Had we looked different, or lived in a different universe, had we not still be sitting there, saying that things appear designed? How can we not look at ourselves in some kind of marvel?

Again, I wouldn't call you delusional, but I think it is clear that you are inserting something into the picture you have of the world - something that your mind somehow desires of even "needs" in order to somehow satisfy those questions that the mind itself is perhaps unwillingly asking, simply as a by-product of existing in a universe where it has to perceive the world around it, and somehow make sense of it, because it would not be able to persist with a totally chaotic and meaningless perception.

I think that is something we all do at some level and to some degree, but there are different ways of doing it.

Yes, my beliefs are purely subjective and since this is the only universe that I am aware it is possible that I am seeing patterns and/or design when they may not be. Knowledge is subject to change as new information becomes available and I have definitely changed my beliefs many times in my 39 years of being alive. And my world views, opinions and beliefs will most definitely change in the future as I gather more info and insight.

Aaand that's why I wouldn't call you delusional.

I think delusion lies in the insistance of absolutes in a world where we clearly don't have all the info.

The tentative position is the sane one, as I see it.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

If the TOE was guided by design then why the many evolutionary dead ends, why all the needles suffering in the animal kingdom, why so many inefficient designs? The TOE allows for all of these things, a designer would have to be remarkably incompetent.

 

[WarK]

The TOE explains how life evolved and that is it. It is not concerned with anything other than that and I have never suggested that a magic sky god or a creator has guided it in any way, shape or form other than being responsible for creating the laws of nature that the universe seems to follow.

But in your opening post you said:

Secondly, I look at life on this planet and evolution. While I definitely believe evolution to be true and that humans share a common ancestor with the banana, there are some aspects to life that in my opinion cannot be sufficiently explained by a natural "only" process. Here are some examples:

Do you mean to say that this universe was fine tuned so that life eventually would arise?

 

[tuxbox]

If the TOE was guided by design then why the many evolutionary dead ends, why all the needles suffering in the animal kingdom, why so many inefficient designs? The TOE allows for all of these things, a designer would have to be remarkably incompetent.

The suffering that occurs in nature is exactly why I do not believe in a personal "all loving and all knowing" deity.

 

[tuxbox]

Similar to my beliefs if anyone cares.

 

[tuxbox]

The TOE explains how life evolved and that is it. It is not concerned with anything other than that and I have never suggested that a magic sky god or a creator has guided it in any way, shape or form other than being responsible for creating the laws of nature that the universe seems to follow.

But in your opening post you said:

Secondly, I look at life on this planet and evolution. While I definitely believe evolution to be true and that humans share a common ancestor with the banana, 1)there are some aspects to life that in my opinion cannot be sufficiently explained by a natural "only" process. Here are some examples:

2)Do you mean to say that this universe was fine tuned so that life eventually would arise?

1) I will try to explain what I meant by that statement, but as the evidence has shown, I am not very articulate and my writing and grammar skills suck. Nature seems to be in some way self aware of its environment. how else could a plant such as the Venus Flytrap evolve a mechanism to trap and digest insects. Venus Flytraps can live without trapping and digesting insects. I know this because I own a few. The traps to not get as big but they are fine with just sunlight and water. I have yet to see a plant or animal evolve with mechanism of any kind to trap and digest something that does not exist in nature. If mutations are truly random then it seems logical that we would find such creatures either in the fossil record or still alive today. Granted I do believe that creature would not last very long and would become extinct pretty quickly.


2) I do not know. Life could have been just a byproduct when the laws of nature were created (if they were indeed created).

 

[Frenger]

1) I will try to explain what I meant by that statement, but as the evidence has shown, I am not very articulate and my writing and grammar skills suck. Nature seems to be in some way self aware of its environment. how else could a plant such as the Venus Flytrap evolve a mechanism to trap and digest insects.

It didn't evolve to do anything, that specific mechanism happened to work in that environment and ensured survival until reproductive aage, along with many other mechanisms that would ensure survival. Evolution doesn't have a will or a goal, traits survive or they don't, this is either because of natural selection, sexual selection or genetic drift.

Also it's possible that traits such as this serves more than 1 purpose or at least served a different purpose in it's ancestrys history. We look at it now and say "well it can't have just appeared like that" and chances are it didn't, it could have evolved for different reasons and then specialised over time.

Venus Flytraps can live without trapping and digesting insects. I know this because I own a few. The traps to not get as big but they are fine with just sunlight and water. I have yet to see a plant or animal evolve with mechanism of any kind to trap and digest something that does not exist in nature.

If there was literally no way of an organism gaining energy then no, it wouldn't survive and it isn't a surprise that you haven't seen anything. Also, organisms tend to survive on more than one energy source, plants for example survive on both sunlight and nutrients from the ground, these didn't have to happen at the same time.

If mutations are truly random then it seems logical that we would find such creatures either in the fossil record or still alive today.

Remember, everything has evolved together. There wouldn't suddenly be an organism that could only feed on mcdonalds, however it pre dated the big mac by over 700 years and therefore starved to death, it would have evolved in an environment that had a food and energy supply that it could feed on. If it didn't it would die out along with the trait for fussy eating. Also remember that organisms will rarely have only one energy source (I can't think of any off the top of my head).

Granted I do believe that creature would not last very long and would become extinct pretty quickly.

Very quickly yeah.

2) I do not know. Life could have been just a byproduct when the laws of nature were created (if they were indeed created).

The laws of nature weren't created but we're not exactly sure on how they began.

Life originated from chemical laws and then evolved from there. We don't know exactly how that life may have begun, and we may never know the exact way, but we will be able to find at least some ways that life could have come from "non-life".

 

[tuxbox]

The laws of nature weren't created but we're not exactly sure on how they began.

Life originated from chemical laws and then evolved from there. We don't know exactly how that life may have begun, and we may never know the exact way, but we will be able to find at least some ways that life could have come from "non-life".

If we are to believe the Big Bang occurred, the universe at one point did not exist, which suggests nature also did not exist along with the laws the universe seems to follow. So how can we( we, meaning humans ) say that the laws of nature were not created?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If we are to believe the Big Bang occurred, the universe at one point did not exist, which suggests nature also did not exist along with the laws the universe seems to follow. So how can we( we, meaning humans ) say that the laws of nature were not created?

A proper scientist needs to be able to look objectively into the world without taking any baggage. You have lived your entire life with a very narrow perspective of physical existence (which we call day to day experience) that you would be forgiven to think that the entire reality works pretty much the way you see it from that narrow perspective. The problem is that reality is completely different from what it meets the eye, and your intuition (that is nothing more than prejudices about reality) is as useful to explain things outside our common experience as shooting half a pig from a cannon is useful to write the works of Shakespeare.
When you made your statement you have made the assumption that there was a point in time where the Universe did not exist and then after that the Universe did exist. The problem is time (like space) didn't exist before the big bang, so there couldn't be a moment in time in which the Universe did not exist (because there was no time). It is like asking "what is at the north of the north pole?"

Secondly you are using the term "laws of nature" quite loosely as if it was possible to exist some other laws, as if this were legal laws that one could decree at a whim. The "laws of nature" are not "laws" they are description of what things do out of the fact that those things are what they are. It is kind of like saying, "look there is these things called triangles, if the sides are all the same then the angles are all 60 degrees" and I would call that a law.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The laws of nature weren't created but we're not exactly sure on how they began.

Life originated from chemical laws and then evolved from there. We don't know exactly how that life may have begun, and we may never know the exact way, but we will be able to find at least some ways that life could have come from "non-life".

If we are to believe the Big Bang occurred, the universe at one point did not exist, which suggests nature also did not exist along with the laws the universe seems to follow. So how can we( we, meaning humans ) say that the laws of nature were not created?

Two things:

1. It is not clear if the universe and the "laws of the universe/nature" are linked in this way. That is to say, it is possible that these laws exist outside of the universe, and would persist even were there no universe in which they currently applied. There are other ways in which this sort of thing could work too, maybe said laws don't exist outside of universes, but all possible universes share the same laws; and these are simply intrinsic properties of any universes. In this case they wouldn't be so much created applied or not applied depending on the conditions. But regardless of the specifics, it is not possible at this juncture to make the assumption that these laws were created at all.

2. I accept the colloquial use of the word "creation" as it applies to the universe, or even to the beginning of the universe. However, this is not an accurate accounting of what science suggest actually happened. It is not clear if anything has ever been created in the sense people mean when they talk about the beginning of the universe.

 

[RedYellow]

Is it really possible to have something exist prior to nature? It seems like natural laws would be a precondition to anything existing, nature is the behavior of things that exist.

This would include God. If God has any reliable attribute that is a precondition to being God, including a mind capable of coordinated thought, then you are saying there is some kind of framework in place that allows this to be so, and facilitates it. And God couldn't be responsible for it, either, it would make no sense. God couldn't decide one day, to have a coherent mind, or to exist at all. Consciousness is a system that depends on preconditions which themselves are not conscious, rather they are nature.

If you want to say God transcends the laws of nature or logic, then you have no grounds to say there is anything reliable we can know about him. There simply is no reason to conclude that a conscious god with various specific attributes can be responsible for nature, without first depending on a nature.

Nature is all that is, as far as we can know, and what's beyond nature probably isn't even relevant, in fact, it's probably nothing at all.

 

[Isotelus]

1) I will try to explain what I meant by that statement, but as the evidence has shown, I am not very articulate and my writing and grammar skills suck. Nature seems to be in some way self aware of its environment. how else could a plant such as the Venus Flytrap evolve a mechanism to trap and digest insects. Venus Flytraps can live without trapping and digesting insects. I know this because I own a few. The traps to not get as big but they are fine with just sunlight and water. I have yet to see a plant or animal evolve with mechanism of any kind to trap and digest something that does not exist in nature. If mutations are truly random then it seems logical that we would find such creatures either in the fossil record or still alive today. Granted I do believe that creature would not last very long and would become extinct pretty quickly.

You could always look and see what the scientists who are studying this are saying. Here's a paper that discusses the evolution of
carnivorous plants, particularly Venus Flytraps. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02935.x/abstract;jsessionid=CF6FCAAE2287745386D03307CBF8F59C.d01t03
You probably won't be able to access the whole article, but you should at least be aware that a perfectly valid evolutionary explanation has been put forth. Also, fossils of carnivorous plants do exist, though they are mostly represented by pollen or seeds. Here's one where the actual plant itself was found: http://faculty.frostburg.edu/biol/hli/research/Archaeamphora.pdf

 

[tuxbox]

You could always look and see what the scientists who are studying this are saying. Here's a paper that discusses the evolution of
carnivorous plants, particularly Venus Flytraps. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02935.x/abstract;jsessionid=CF6FCAAE2287745386D03307CBF8F59C.d01t03
You probably won't be able to access the whole article, but you should at least be aware that a perfectly valid evolutionary explanation has been put forth. Also, fossils of carnivorous plants do exist, though they are mostly represented by pollen or seeds. Here's one where the actual plant itself was found: http://faculty.frostburg.edu/biol/hli/research/Archaeamphora.pdf

I was not able to access the first link, but I was able to find this on the: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8151000/8151644.stm. While it does not go into great detail, I did find it very interesting. I also believe that every creature on this planet has a valid evolutionary explanation. I do not believe a supernatural being spoke and then life just appeared on earth.

 

[tuxbox]

Is it really possible to have something exist prior to nature? It seems like natural laws would be a precondition to anything existing, nature is the behavior of things that exist.

This would include God. If God has any reliable attribute that is a precondition to being God, including a mind capable of coordinated thought, then you are saying there is some kind of framework in place that allows this to be so, and facilitates it. And God couldn't be responsible for it, either, it would make no sense. God couldn't decide one day, to have a coherent mind, or to exist at all. Consciousness is a system that depends on preconditions which themselves are not conscious, rather they are nature.

If you want to say God transcends the laws of nature or logic, then you have no grounds to say there is anything reliable we can know about him. There simply is no reason to conclude that a conscious god with various specific attributes can be responsible for nature, without first depending on a nature.

Nature is all that is, as far as we can know, and what's beyond nature probably isn't even relevant, in fact, it's probably nothing at all.

The nature of god is not something I even try to comprehend. If one exists, I believe it is not possible know what it might be, much less its nature.

 

[RedYellow]

Then we have absolutely no responsibility to go searching for it, or to bother to wonder if it does. Anything could be true on that kind of thinking. Maybe God really did create us, but he's actually just one of a pantheon. Maybe he's an evil outlaw god among them, for using his abilities to torment his creations.

If we're supposed to know God exists, if that's what an omnipotent God wants, then there should be no reason he couldn't get it, afterall any reason you could think of would be mere human logic, right? Would a supernatural God be bound by your understanding of him? Apparently you don't think so either.

 

[Isotelus]

I was not able to access the first link, but I was able to find this on the: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8151000/8151644.stm. While it does not go into great detail, I did find it very interesting. I also believe that every creature on this planet has a valid evolutionary explanation. I do not believe a supernatural being spoke and then life just appeared on earth.

The BBC article was written on the paper I linked. Sorry you can't access it . It would likely help you dispel your notion that nature seems self-aware.