like how if a murderer leaves no evidence, and there are no eye-witnesses, then no one did it, right?
that's not the point of the question. he's not asking "God or man did it?" it is explicitly: intelligent design or random chance?

julz

Did what when there is no murder and when there is nobody murdered?

Nope, i mean like no murdering at all, and so of course also no murder or any evidences. I mean something that doesn't exist.


Okay. But that is wrong. Wrong in content and wrong in the question.

There is no proof for intelligent design. And as shown and told above, no evidence means no existence. You cannot simply introduce an imaginary power, which is lie. Or you have to allow ME to introduce MY imaginary power, my lies. I have actually a bag full here

Nope, we have to follow evidences and facts. Not imaginary white rabbits.

The word random chance in the connection you use it here is also wrong. Most things follows patterns. A crystal grows by a pattern. That is no chance. Same counts for most life things. Evolution is not just chance. It follows its very own rules. Everything follows Causality in the end.

Causality!

Introduce a god and this god destroys the world by its existance. Because that would be against causality.

that's rubbish.

our existence is the death in my murder analogy. it definitely happened somehow. was it murder, or was the person who died responsible for their own death? if the murderer leaves no evidence that can be linked to anyone, does that automatically mean there was no murderer? of course not. we might have to assume it's a suicide, but it doesn't mean it is.

no evidence does not equal no truth.
and that's where you are stuck. what caused causality? what was the first cause? scientists don't presume to know; that's okay. nothing wrong with that. but it either had to be something outside of causality (whether it's God or a more complex universe with rules that exist outside of causality, or something else) or it goes infinitely into the past.

julz

You live in a very special world my friend.



Again. We have no murder, we have no murdered, we have no weapon, no crime scene, we have no attestors, we have no other evidences, we have nothing, and of course we have NO crime. All we have are no's.

And you want to tell me we have a murder? I tell you what police tells you too: This crime doesn't exist. Go home.

Same counts for your god. We have no proof of any existance. We have no proof of any god caused effects. We have no murder, we have no murdered, we have no weapon, no crime scene, we have no attestors, we have no other evidences, we have nothing, and of course we have NO crime, in our case a god.

All we have is a manmade book full of myths and fairy tales that is unbelievable full of inconsistencies and disproven parts. Brothers of Grimm books have more consistence. Nope. This crime doesn't exist.



No evidence means in every case wrong. And not right. It's the evidence that proofs something right. And the lack of evidence that proofs something wrong.

Everybody who says that no evidence means right has a big problem in thinking. Besides that, everybody who says that no evidence means right has to assume that ALL other religions, fairy tales, myths, and everything a human just can imagine is also true. And then we have another dilemma, haven't we? Me likes this pink god with the nozzle best, and the earth is of course square ...



I am not stuck. The answer is simple: i don't know - yet.

But that doesn't mean it is made by a god. It's is even more likely made by an alien from another dimension. Or my ficus benjamini here ...

We have NO evidence yet. For none of the theories. Most likey that this one question, what was BEFORE beginning never gets answered.

But we can say what we have now. A causal world ...

i don't know what you're on about. are you saying authoritatively that there was never a murder that was assumed to be a suicide because the murderer left no evidence? i gave you a fine illustration, and you just respond "no illustration!"
no, no evidence means "we don't know - yet". we only know something is wrong if evidence proves it is wrong; we know nothing more if we don't have evidence for or against.
that's right. and why don't we know? because there's no evidence for what caused it. does that mean there is no cause? no. so you are stuck, until you change your mind.

julz

Why can't the big bang the first cause?

An other explanation could be that there is really an infinite past. I read that in the after the universe origined the metric expansion of space was exponential. And an exponential function has an asymptote at the x-axis. So there could be an infinite line of cause.

However, inventing a "god" or "designer" who lived "outside of causality" and created the universe is very ridiculous.

I talk about exact that. You talk about a murder here, introduce imaginary facts, but there is simply no crime. No murder, no murdered, no weapon, no nothing. You introduce a fairy tale. I cannot find a single proof for your fairy tale. Which means the crime you are talking about didn't happen.

You talk about a god, but there is simply none. Not a single proof for your fairy tale. This crime didn't happen.

Others talk about a pink elephant they have seen. But there is not a single proof. This crime didn't happen.

Brothers of Grim wrote down lots of fairy tales. There is not a single proof that they are true. This crime didn't happen.

Clearer now what i mean?



But your "we don't know yet" is spelled: "there is a God and nothing else". That doesn't sound like we don't know yet. That sounds like shut up, we have the only truth. And that is simply not true.

No evidence for an existence simply means no existence. Up to the point where the existence gets proven. Where there is an evidence.

No evidence means not true, and not vice versa.



I am not stuck. Don't tell me that i have to change my mind to rubbish. It is you who is bound to a fairytale book and its storys, not me. I look for facts, not for lies.

Again you are wrong. We don't know because we cannot look behind the big bang. The why is because the natural laws doesn't allow to look farer back than around 100,000 years after the big bang. We can calculate farer back by math. But we cannot go before point zero with even that weapon. This has nothing to do with a god. But natural laws.

Having causality means we have causality in the first place. A proven thing. There is no light going on before i turn the switch.

Causality is a rule that also a god would need to follow when he didn't want to destroy the universe by doing something uncausal. Like a miracle for example ...

I think you answered that you would assume a man had arranged the seashells. I wasn't asking whether it was a god or not, but whether you would assume something with intelligence arranged them, or whether they were arranged randomly.

Since you (and anyone) would assume it was a man, with intelligence, and there's nothing wrong with that assumption, all I'm saying is that when we see similar patterns in nature and especially in living things, it's not illogical to assume that an intelligence was involved in their design. There may be other explanations, as you have said, but intelligence is one option.

Since we don't know yet, we should be open to consider all options.

This approach does not use any religion or scripture or fairy tales. It's simply a possible logical explanation for the patterns and laws visible in the universe. You yourself said that these laws and patterns might be the result of an alien race. This is Intelligent Design.

Well, if you compare life with a square of seashells, a god is a CUBE of seashells.

What caused god? Did he origined by chance?
The answer that he lived "outside causality" would be rediculous.

That's exactly right, it clearly makes no sense. But I do think the answers aren't within our current uhm frame of knowledge and perhaps even logic so much. Perhaps or rather probably we will need to think outside of the box.

I'm sure there are a few things we don't know yet, that really will explain a lot eventually.

You know, there are quite a few nice theories that do make sense,

Cheers