The basic argument of ID is probability

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Is there anything in the Universe that a human can describe as “without purpose”?;

That is The Question.

@gbrooks9

would it take the absence of God for you to say something is without purpose?

No, it would take the absence of purpose to say there is no God.

@T_aquaticus

That seems rather circular.

@T_aquaticus, what is circular is when you say that one cannot provide evidence for the spiritual, because you would accept as valid any evidence for the same.

What is circular is when one says that there is no purpose because there is no God, and there is no God because there is no purpose. See above.

What is circular is when one says that a species is fit because it is selected and selected because it is fit.

@T_aquaticus

Another non-human intelligent species would also be well adapted to their environment, so I’m not sure what you are saying here.

The intelligent species, homo species, is the result to a very long process of adaptation to the environment found on earth. It is expected that other intelligent life that may exist in our universe will develop on a similar planet under similar conditions. Indeed current thinking seems to justify my thinking that evolution is determined more by ecology than by genes.

My point is that God created humans by creating a universe with all the characteristics that intelligent beings, human or even non-human, need to develop and flourish. It would seem that humans would have more in common with non-human intelligent beings, than they would with other creatures of our own planet. In any case our lives are dependent on the mind that designed and shaped our universe.

In terms of the cards, certainly it is true that it a long time before you dealt enough hands to have enough to deal every possibility so it would seem that a perfect hand was dealt, however that is determined. However we cannot say when that hand will be dealt, whether the first or the last. We cannot be sure whether that hand will be dealt or not, if it is random.

When we play a card game we are not restricted to the “right” deal. Everyone plays the hand they are given with greater or lesser skill. This is the kind of a world we live, where chance plays a role, but God’s design is not dependent on random chance and neither is ours.

Language is not regular in that it is historically developed. It has its own rules which are often not regular. It has letters and words which are commonly used and others that are not. It evolves organically and haphazardly, not linearly.

[T_aquaticus]

@Relates

@T_aquaticus, what is circular is when you say that one cannot provide evidence for the spiritual, because you would accept as valid any evidence for the same.

What is circular is when one says that there is no purpose because there is no God, and there is no God because there is no purpose. See above.

What is circular is when one says that a species is fit because it is selected and selected because it is fit.

I never said any of those things, so I am not sure what you are going on about.

It still remains that you make the bare assertion that God creates a rational universe, and then point to the rational universe as evidence for your bare assertion. That is a circular argument. Putting circular arguments in other peoples’ mouths does not stop your own arguments from being circular.

@Relates

The intelligent species, homo species, is the result to a very long process of adaptation to the environment found on earth. It is expected that other intelligent life that may exist in our universe will develop on a similar planet under similar conditions. Indeed current thinking seems to justify my thinking that evolution is determined more by ecology than by genes.

Evolution is determined by both the environment (i.e. ecology) and genes.[quote=“Relates, post:41, topic:36976”]
My point is that God created humans by creating a universe with all the characteristics that intelligent beings, human or even non-human, need to develop and flourish. It would seem that humans would have more in common with non-human intelligent beings, than they would with other creatures of our own planet. In any case our lives are dependent on the mind that designed and shaped our universe.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on how you are measuring similarities. I also see that you are once again making bare assertions about designers.

@Relates

In terms of the cards, certainly it is true that it a long time before you dealt enough hands to have enough to deal every possibility so it would seem that a perfect hand was dealt, however that is determined. However we cannot say when that hand will be dealt, whether the first or the last. We cannot be sure whether that hand will be dealt or not, if it is random.

When we play a card game we are not restricted to the “right” deal. Everyone plays the hand they are given with greater or lesser skill. This is the kind of a world we live, where chance plays a role, but God’s design is not dependent on random chance and neither is ours.

Again, lots of bare assertions that really don’t address the topic.

@Relates

Language is not regular in that it is historically developed. It has its own rules which are often not regular. It has letters and words which are commonly used and others that are not. It evolves organically and haphazardly, not linearly.

Until you define “regular” I really don’t understand what you are getting at.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Relates

Is there anything in the Universe that a human can describe as “without purpose”?;

That is The Question.

gbrooks9 asked:
Would it take the absence of God for you to say something is without purpose?

No, it would take the absence of purpose to say there is no God.

@Relates
Roger, are you okay?

If I asked you if you had a loaded gun in your jacket, would you tell me
that the question I really want to ask is there ever a time that you are not wearing your Jacket?!

No, you wouldn’t. Because I’m not asking about the jacket. The Jacket is merely the
likely location of the thing I am asking about!

So… again I would ask you… is there anything in the Universe (a Universe that has God),
that does not have purpose?

The reason I’m asking this is because I think you are butchering the meaning of the phrase
“without purpose”.

The only way we are going to know is if you don’t make up a different question, but you
answer the question you are being asked. Let me re-word the question, so we can get
a fresh start:

Is there anything in the Universe that is “random” from a human viewpoint? Anything?

The category of nature that most people are willing to call random is the motion of
sub-atomic particles. They think Quantum Mechanics can be genuinely random from
a human viewpoint.

Do you think the movement of electrons and protons is genuinely random, at the sub-atomic
level?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@gbrooks9

The category of nature that most people are willing to call random is the motion of
sub-atomic particles. They think Quantum Mechanics can be genuinely random from
a human viewpoint.

Do you think the movement of electrons and protons is genuinely random, at the sub-atomic
level?

You ask if the movement of subatomic particles are random. Well of course no one has ever observed the movement of quantum particles. We know that if we can determine their location, we cannot determine their velocity, and vice versa. There movement is then unknown and perhaps indeterminate.

I would not call them random. The problem with the word random is that it is used too many ways to convey much meaning, In my opinion it should be used indicate one completed motion or process. Light is random, but Brownian movement is indeterminate.

Matter contains heat energy, unless it is absolute zero. This means that matter moves or like vibrates. It does not move in a particular direction all things being equal. Therefore I would say that quantum particles move in a way that is indeterminate. If they move in a determinate direction it is because energy has been added or subtracted, just as with any particles.

[Joel_Duff]

Stephen, Nice to see the mention of Del Ratzch here. I took his “Philosophy of Science” class while at Calvin and we read the first edition of his book. That course had a huge influence on my thinking. Actually you could say that class introduced me to thinking about science.