Quote from Veyron 16.4:
Where, is the inconsistency? You have to show your work.
I need only show your work Veyron. It's inconsistent.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
But, that is not what the respondent said. The respondent did not say that "absolute truth exists implicitly and without qualification." The respondent said, "in mathematics and in nature." That is a logical qualification placed on the existence of absolute truth.
Yet you found no corresponding logical qualification problem with Existence. Math, Nature, Existence all have the âabsolute truthâ quality so why separate them for no apparent reason?
Math is logical proof of âabsolute truthâ, Nature is and Existence is. You agreed Existence but for no justifiable reason you exclude Math and Nature for having qualification status.
That is an example of your inconsistency.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
I'm not bound by the constraints of having no proof for what I believe in.
Inconsistency is not proof of anything other than inconsistency.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
There is more proof for the existence of God, than there is for modern science's theory of how the Universe came into existence.
The existence of the Universe is proven. God is not.
The existence of the Universe provides other proofs about the Universe. God does not exist even as the Universe does and God provides no proofs.
The Universe renders up knowledge and corroborative evidence and associated information which gives understanding about how the Universe itself may have come into existence.
God's existence is not proved as the Universe is, God provides no proofs, although the Universe does and God renders no confirmable knowledge or information about It's own existence as the Universe does.
That is a clear 3 - 0 to the Universe.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
Recognize the complexity of the human cell? The human cell itself is so far beyond mere âcomplex designâ than ALL combined technology mankind has ever produced, since he showed up on planet earth would never be enough to replicate it..
You are starting at the wrong end. Simple organisms become complex, they don't start complex. Complexity from simplicity.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
How did the Universe conspire to produce such and complex bio-chemical engineering masterpiece (on its own) out of total cosmic chaos after the "Big Bang" without any purpose behind the process, whatsoever? How do you derive a complex system of function, without purpose preceding its existence?
Why do you assume the Universe conspired to produce complex bio-chemical engineering?
There is inconsistency in that. You have to show your work!
You can count on one hand the names of the elementary particles the Universe started out with at Big Bang. Thanks to Science (and math) you can follow the combination of those particles from 100th of a second after Big Bang right up to where we are now.
Starting from complex to basic is the wrong approach. Start from simple/basic start and notice how the evolution of elemental particles arrive at complex bio-chemical results.
No sign of, nor any requirement anywhere, for purpose or an intelligent director.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
Have you looked at the mathematical probability for the formation of our solar system coming randomly out of cosmic chaos as a resultant permutation (factor) of the "Big Bang?" Or, what about the mathematical probability for placing a bomb under an Oak tree, allowing it to explode and then having a two (2) story, 7,000 square foot house randomly appear by the side of a lake with perfect southern exposure, all by chance? The probability of that house being formed out of such an explosion is at least 10 to the 80th power. And, that's just an inanimate object. The statistical probability for a single human cell to have redesigned its way into forming a fully corporeal/human being, is virtually not worth writing on a piece of paper, because the number of zeros in the Power would be embarrassingly to large to even contemplate.
In your argument above, complex things need a more complex thing to design them. So what designed the more complex designer? And what designed that?
Your argument is not an explanation. It is question begging.
In a range of 0 to 1 Evolution can be said to have a mathematical probability of 1. The process of tiny incremental changes over many generations which eventually develop into complex organisms by the best changes being those that can survive in the environment around them and reproduce. Thereby passing on those changes to the next generation.
A giant mathematical probability is therefore totally unnecessary .
All known life forms on earth, plant and animal, consist of the same single basic building block. The cell. There are no exceptions. From the same single basic start through to complex.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
I would argue that in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one might at least remain intellectually honest enough, long enough to admit that our Universe could not have possibly come into existence through mere random chance. The mathematics simply doesnât bare that out. Yet, we do exist. And, that brings us right back to the reality that [0+0] = 0. Until the Unbeliever and/or the Atheist deals with that mathematical reality, he will forever be stuck in a Universe that can't possibly exist, that being the one he made up in his own mind.
Your mathematical reality is no such thing. Your argument has no legs. There is no intellectual honesty in the denial of science which shows how something from nothing works.
Deductive reasoning is a fundamental of math.
[0+0] = 0 is not proven to represent the Universe. Reason Deductively how it is so... "Show your work." !
Feynman shows in math and science how something comes from nothing. Your math[0+0] = 0 ( omg you must be joking surely?) does not disprove Feynman.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
All I'm doing is removing the logical wiggle room mathematically for anyone intellectually honest enough to accept it and then merely applying the very same rules that science uses when it wants to take the next logical step in its theory.
No, you are doing no such thing. Your math does not show the Universe began from nothing. But even if it did, 0+0=0 is not the math the Universe itself shows is possible for something coming into existence from nothing.
You can ignore the math and the science which does that, but it won't make it go away.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
1. Does the Universe exist? Yes.
Agreed. We can both use deductive reasoning to confirm the answer as "yes". It's reasonable then to now use that same deductive reasoning which confirms that answer "yes" is true, to similar questions.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
2. Did the Universe self-instantiate its own existence? No.
You cannot know that. It is not possible to furnish information of same or similar quality to question 2 as it is to question 1. Therefore you will have to supply overwhelming evidence to reason the answer "No" to that question.
You're now deviating from the course where reliable and substantial answers can be justifiably made as in question 1.
For instance Science demonstrates how Vacuum Fluctuation occurs. Something from nothing.
For that reason you cannot therefore know the Universe did not "self-instantiate its own existence" without dismissing out of hand some of the same deductive reasoning which answers the first question with a "yes".
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
3. Is the Universe Infinite? No.
Again you are deviating away from deductive reasoning which confirmed the answer in question 1. The Universe is understood to be expanding. You cannot know at this stage that it is not expanding infinitely. That is as infinite as infinite gets. Every time it expands, it would expand again. Infinitely. Your answer does not conform to the same standard used in question 1.
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
4. Does the Universe exhibit intelligence? Yes.
Agreed. Would that be yet another absolute truth popping up?
Quote from Veyron 16.4:
5. Does the Universe exhibit function? Yes.
What do you mean by function? If you mean one element of the Universe or a given set of elements is associated or relates or combines with another element or set of elements, then yes.
If you mean the procedure is purposely directed then No, the universe does not exhibit a purpose. That much can be established the same way answer 1 is.
You have stated you intend to use logic and math to prove how your "proffer" is not faulty. It scored only 2 out of 5 when using the very fundamentals of both logic and math - deductive reasoning - essential to make your case initially stand up.
It doesn't stand up so your claim that it's indestructible is plain wrong.
Your whole argument is that there must be a Creator for the Universe to exist. Therefore, by your "math" and by your argument, there must be a Creator for the Creator to exist.
Infinite regress.
In the end, all Intelligent Design/Creationism will end up right there.
