The Moon and Design

Originally posted by chaney3
If this thread seems so important to me, it's because atheists have attacked any talk of design with such venom that I feel compelled to respond.

I for one have not 'attacked any talk of design with venom'. I have on the other hand attacked your lies and nonsense.

Originally posted by apathist
You don't know the Clarke quote. It is pretty famous. I posted it this thread already.

I know the Clarke quote, but still think your post that he responded to did not make much sense in context.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
Conservation IS causation.

No it isn't. Your last sentence in your post is If I throw a six sided die, there is a hard and fast rule that it will show one of six numbers. Is the resulting '3' therefore 'caused' by that rule? shows can see the difference between the map and the terrain, or between a description of an event and that event itself. Conservation law, like all laws of physics, is merely descriptive. I'm surprised at you. Causation is an act or process - it is the event, it is the terrain.

But look down at the quantum level and you see a very different picture. Particles are moving around, changing, from one type to another all seemingly at random - but within certain prescribed limits constrained by the laws of conservation. ...
The 'random' I'll save for the other thread. Here I just want to point out that if you changed the word 'constrained' to the words 'described by' then I could agree. As it stands though you are treating a physical law as if it were a force that causes effects. Of course it isn't.

So an election cannot become a positron as charge would not be conserved. But a neutrino can quite happily become an electron and positron. There are constraints on when and where this might happen, but to say the change was 'caused' is a bit of a stretch.
To say the change isn't caused is GIANT stretch. The only events that are not caused are those events that didn't happen.

And I dispute the 'came from nothing' as being incoherent.
I agree something never comes from nothing. Oddly though, you just contradicted yourself, since you had implied that a neutrino can become an electron and a positron without being caused, ie the change came from nothing!

Look, I'll say it again: every boundary has two sides. So IF the universe had a beginning then it started in ubertime. You should have seen that coming.

You are, in your minds eye, imagining a large 'reality' in which sits a universe. This is not an easily justifiable position.
It's very easy to justify. Again: boundary, therefore two sides.

I realise that in this post there are two different arguments I am pursing. I hope it is not confusing. One is that there may be no 'before' and the other is assuming there is a before, what can we conclude from that.
I'm pursuing two options as well. Either infinte; or bounded. I, however, have a super-tech machine from the future that lets me play around with the second option. 🙂

I already explained that. In your minds eye of a super verse where universes are poping into existence, it seems reasonable to think there are nevertheless some constraints - say conservation of energy for example. If no such constraints exist, then sure, giant turtles seems perfectly reasonable. Yet you reject them for some reason do you not?
No I do not. In that scenario I expect the magic turtle to be as constrained as the new universe would be. >>>The laws of conservation would apply, but not until AFTER the things poofed into existence.<<< You should have seen that coming too.

Rules does not equal causation.
Correct!

These posts are fun, but getting too long. Help me boil things down.

Something cannot come from nothing. We agree on that.
Any boundary implicates two sides to the boundary. Can we agree on that?
What else do we agree on, and where do we disagree?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know the Clarke quote, but still think your post that he responded to did not make much sense in context.

Clarke is here? I thought he died. Maybe this is a weird side effect caused by my super-tech time machine from the future???

Seriously, his quote is stand-alone, it was brought in merely to provide another (and perhaps more useful) view on how we should understand the term 'magic'. In these sorts of conversations, when we say something magically happened, we don't mean that it didn't happen (which would follow from your preferred definition, right?); instead we mean the event is currently lacking an explanation.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What is the connection between science and religion? I don't see any. Perhaps I am just stuck within my box of opinion.

I just started a fiction book and on the very first page I started laughing, because it reminded me of this discussion and of some other similarities between science and religion. At least partly for fun. Of course, we'll have to substitute religion for magic here:

from Pratchett's 'the Science of Discworld':

Magicians and scientists are, on the face of it, poles apart. Certainly, a group of people who often dress strangely, live in a world of their own. speak a specialized language and frequently make statements that appear to be in flagrant breach of common sense have nothing in common with a group of people who often dress strangely, speak a specialized language, live ... er ...

Well, yeah.

Originally posted by apathist
Clarke is here? I thought he died. Maybe this is a weird side effect caused by my super-tech time machine from the future???

Is English your second language or you deliberately make an effort to misunderstand people? I find trying to communicate with you difficult to say the least.

Seriously, his quote is stand-alone, it was brought in merely to provide another (and perhaps more useful) view on how we should understand the term 'magic'.
And I disagree that any such understanding is in any way relevant at this point in the thread.

In these sorts of conversations, when we say something magically happened, we don't mean that it didn't happen (which would follow from your preferred definition, right?); instead we mean the event is currently lacking an explanation.
Actually, you introduced magic specifically as an example of something you considered outrageously impossible. You seem to have difficulty following even your own posts.

Or do you actually believe that a giant turtle on whose back a world of magic exists, is something that happened, but merely lacking an explanation? If so, please join cheney in the looney bin (moon reference pun in case you don't get it). If not, your posts are not making sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is English your second language or you deliberately make an effort to misunderstand people? I find trying to communicate with you difficult to say the least.

[b]Seriously, his quote is stand-alone, it was brought in merely to provide another (and perhaps more useful) view on how we should understand the term 'magic'.
And I disagree that any such ...[text shortened]... oney bin (moon reference pun in case you don't get it). If not, your posts are not making sense.[/b]

Looney bin?

Upset because I have the edge in this debate?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is English your second language ...

I think it's past your nap-time, buddy.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
Actually, you introduced magic specifically as an example of something you considered outrageously impossible. ...

No, but as something that desperately needed explaining. Look, you'll feel better after some soothing tea and sleepy-time. See you later.

Originally posted by chaney3
I have not stated a religion.

Talking about God, or a Creator, who 'caused' everything into existence, is different. Even in the spirituality forum it should be clear to you that I am searching for the truth about who this God is, and if the Bible actually portrays Him accurately.

If you are really looking for the truth about god then look no further.
There is no biblical god. ie. a separate enitity that is all powerful , all- seeing.
If you want to know about spirituality then you start with a firm premise.
If you start with the wrong premise, ie. some bearded guy sitting on a cloud, then your judgment will be clouded by your false premise. You will keep trying to push square pegs into round holes .... you dig?

Originally posted by apathist
I just started a fiction book and on the very first page I started laughing, because it reminded me of this discussion and of some other similarities between science and religion. At least partly for fun. Of course, we'll have to substitute religion for magic here:

from Pratchett's 'the Science of Discworld':

Magicians and scientists are, on the ...[text shortened]... le who often dress strangely, speak a specialized language, live ... er ...

Well, yeah.

Ah Discworld . One of Freaky's fave books no doubt 😀

That guy invented the Harry Potter universe. Rowling should give him royalties.
Cool how he co-writes those books with a scientist, making the text much more meaningful

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is English your second language or you deliberately make an effort to misunderstand people? I find trying to communicate with you difficult to say the least.

[b]Seriously, his quote is stand-alone, it was brought in merely to provide another (and perhaps more useful) view on how we should understand the term 'magic'.
And I disagree that any such ...[text shortened]... oney bin (moon reference pun in case you don't get it). If not, your posts are not making sense.[/b]

They don't make sense to YOU , you mean ...

Originally posted by apathist
Any boundary implicates two sides to the boundary. Can we agree on that?

No, we cannot. You have stated it multiple times without any justification.

Originally posted by apathist
I think it's past your nap-time, buddy.

I think you are being unnecessarily rude because you don't like where the conversation is going.

Originally posted by apathist
No it isn't. Your last sentence in your post is If I throw a six sided die, there is a hard and fast rule that it will show one of six numbers. Is the resulting '3' therefore 'caused' by that rule? shows can see the difference between the map and the terrain, or between a description of an event and that event itself. Conservation law, like all laws ...[text shortened]... tive. I'm surprised at you. Causation is an act or process - it is the event, it is the terrain.

I realise that my statements may be unclear or even inaccurate due to the nature of their brevity encouraged by this forum. I had a assumed you were not really interested in going into the details of what an event is given that you started a thread on the topic then didn't even acknowledge the responses.

Lets look at a small system at two points in time. We look at the state at time A and again a few moments later at time B.
Given the state at time A, and the laws of conservation there are many possible states for time B. There are also many impossible states.
So, when we look at the state at time B, we can say:
1. It was constrained by both the laws of conservation and the initial state at time A.
but
2. It was not the the only possible outcome.
Now depending on your choice of language you could sat that:
(1) implies causation either by the state at time A or the laws of conservation or both.
(2) implies no causation or only partial causation.
What we can say is that the system was not fully deterministic.
Also notable is that given the system at time B we can say that the system at time A was in one of a number of possible states again constrained by laws of conservation.
Any claims to causation therefore run in both directions through time.
In fact, reverse causation is counter intuitively much stronger than forward causation, ie the past is much more accurately predicted than the future.
Now it may be the fact that at some deeper level than we currently know, the universe is fully deterministic in both directions, but that is not a known fact and possibly unknowable. Certainly one cannot draw conclusions based on assuming it and claim the conclusion is based on facts.