Originally Posted by
gut
There were no computers until invented. They went from not being in the universe to being in
the universe. I'm not talking about the elements from which they are made, but rather, the
design.
I think you two may be talking passed each other a bit. From my understanding, you aren't claiming that computers came from outside the universe, but rather that for some time they did not exist, and then a bunch of stuff was arranged in such a way that the object we identify as a "computer" now does exist. He is talking about outside the universe in the sense of "there exists some other universe or multiverse that is separate from our own". In your use of language, for example, if God were "not in the universe" that would imply that God does not exist. In his use of language, if God were "not in the universe" that would mean that God could exist in some other universe or multiverse that is beyond our own.
I think I agree with you to a degree here: abstractions don't really "exist" in the same sense that you or I do. I don't really know enough philosophy to be able to really debate this on any more than a very superficial level though. The significance of the problem in this particular context isn't exactly clear to me. It is certainly possible to create an abstraction, purely within your mind. The ability to create an instance of that abstraction is another matter entirely. Similarly, I'm not sure that it would make sense to say that something that is abstract can interact with something that is physical.
Originally Posted by
gut
I have not designed computers, but have created other things. As for how to interact with
the supernatural, I'll repeat what I've said earlier in this thread: I have never heard
voices or 'spoken with god'. You are confusing me with Jellyslayer
Well, strictly speaking I never said that I heard voices either. I felt things that I interpreted to be God. While I certainly could say that I spoke to God in some sense of the term, that doesn't necessarily mean that any information is conveyed. I mean, I can speak to my coffee cup too, but that doesn't mean that the coffee cup is in a position to hear it.
Originally Posted by
gut
> The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so? [/COLOR]
I consider human being a design do to how low the probability is, from the alternate theory. I
have been rather clear on that from the begining of this thread. Considering a probability as
being low is not the same as giving it an identity. Let me put it like this: There are people
who have won the lottery (multi-million-dollar ones) repeatedly, then suddenly stopped winning
after being investigated. Am I going to call it coincidence or foul. Remember, I have no
evidence upon which to base my decision, only my knowledge of probability.
Well, I think the problem here is that probability is very hard to deal with when you're looking backwards. In some sense, for example, it makes sense to say that the probability of the universe spitting out humans is unity, because there exists at least once instance of humans in the universe. Without being able to reproduce the system in question, it's hard to judge one way or the other. We don't really have a good idea of what the odds are that we came to be, because our sample size is so small relative both to the size of the universe and to the timescales involved.
For science we, fortunately, can work in both directions. We can say, this theory explains evidence X, Y, and Z, but this isn't very useful. If the theory also says, if we perform experiment A, we should expect to see result B, then we can have more confidence in the correctness of our theory (and similarly, if our theory says we should get B, and instead we get C, then this generally means a problem with the theory).
Originally Posted by
gut
>> So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?
> Why yes
Excellent. It is kinda difficult to get some people to agree to that. The problem is, the less
time you have to work with, the less plausible evolution becomes, even if I grant you the
'imortal being' starting condition which is an idea I am not entirely sold on. Because some
have presented objection to this before, I'll give an example. Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K? etc...
You might not like the idea of associating a probability to each, but I do. I'll grant 100%
to infinity, but for the mere 10K generations it would be a number too small to type. Now,
considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc... and I just
don't think it is possible.
10k generations? For what? For a relatively long-lived species like humans, that's 200,000 years maybe. For bacteria that's a month or so. Given that we have found evidence of life that is at least 500 million years old, even the longest lived species that we know of would have gone through many generations over that period.
Originally Posted by
gut
The people who wrote genesis did?
I don't think they did. I'm not sure that it matters--I think the text certainly conveys the idea that the flood covered the whole Earth, regardless of its shape.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.