The Ant and the Blade of Grass

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady, do you have a response to my post above??

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

what i meant to link was this:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I concede that a weakness of any mystical position is a lack of clarity around what you're actually talking about. Then again, I dont think any scientific conclusions should be drawn from my religious beliefs - I think the groping towards understanding is the important bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how that escapes the " I believe IT but I don't know what it is" problem. Remember we're not talking about potential theist or theists-in-waitng, these are actual people who believe ... yet don't know in what.

Shouldn't a person hold off on the belief part until the groping stage is over?

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But you have to ask the next question, Who designed the designer?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you see a watch in a field you can infer it had a designer without requiring an explanation for the designer.

If the universe as a whole is designed by God, Who is not Himself a part of the universe, then logic doesn't require that He be designed. If there is an ultimate explanation then it does not itself require explanation. Atheism doesn't escape this problem, it just makes the ultimate explanation irrational, which is self-contradictory.

If the choice of ultimate truth is design or undesign, only design has explanatory power. Undesign explains nothing and destroys rationality, knowledge and science.

Edit:

I thought of something else I haven't seen before. Even if your statement is true, that the designer requires a designer (which I deny but for the sake of the discussion ...) that doesn't mean it's irrational to believe design requires a designer.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe as a whole is designed by God, Who is not Himself a part of the universe, then logic doesn't require that He be designed. If there is an ultimate explanation then it does not itself require explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this universe was spawned in another universe or process or black hole where the laws of physics do not apply, or that is eternal, or that exists in other dimensions outside of cause and effect, then according to you, logic doesn't require that this universe be designed. Ergo, God is not required.

QED?

[Sephus]

i agree. random mutation and natural selection can reasonably be called a designer.

i still want an answer regrading how you can single out dawkins' inadequacy at answering this question without reading the book he wrote devoted to it.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]

If you see a watch in a field you can infer it had a designer without requiring an explanation for the designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. That's what a century or so of biology has taught us. You cant just infer a designer when other possibilities exist. I require an explanation for design. I want answers. I can't just stop my questioning.
Apparently, you have no problem with ending your inquiry into the workings of nature. How do you do it?

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe as a whole is designed by God, Who is not Himself a part of the universe, then logic doesn't require that He be designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a contradiction here. The Universe is an umbrella term that covers everything that is real. Dictionaries give the definition as: the sum of everything that exists. If God is real/exists, then he is part of the universe, and requires explanation. If hes not part of the universe then hes not real. If you want God to be outside the Universe, then you'll have to redefine the Universe or God.

[ QUOTE ]

If there is an ultimate explanation then it does not itself require explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats true. What makes you think that you've found it? I haven't yet heard a satisfactory explanation for the cause/origin of the universe either. Of those that I've heard, God is the most question begging and the least satisfactory.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism doesn't escape this problem,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a way to escape the trap of circular logic, it just says that there isn't a God or Creator. You can be an atheist an still say :"life was caused by event X" If an atheist doesn't bother to explain what even X is, then he still is faced with an infinite regress. He has to answer the question: "what caused event X" The theory of evolution gives us a plausible physical explanation for that event.

[ QUOTE ]
it just makes the ultimate explanation irrational, which is self-contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

please elaborate.

[ QUOTE ]

If the choice of ultimate truth is design or undesign, only design has explanatory power. Undesign explains nothing and destroys rationality, knowledge and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement could only have been uttered by someone who has little or no understanding of evolutionary theory. No one is saying that there is no design. Obviously there is design in living things. Otherwise, what would we be arguing about? We're just saying that there is no mind behind the designs.

Edit:

I thought of something else I haven't seen before. Even if your statement is true, that the designer requires a designer (which I deny but for the sake of the discussion ...) that doesn't mean it's irrational to believe design requires a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rduke55]

Sorry if someone posted this already but it was tough going once the sidetrack began.

[ QUOTE ]
an exact effect on the brain that causes it to climb up the blade of grass?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of invertebrates that use geotaxis and have specialized behaviors using it. For example, ticks will climb up grass to the top and wait until a host comes by. Sometimes they get a whiff of a chemical emitted by their host and then can drop onto it.
At least the climbing behavior is similar to what we see here. It's a fairly simple thing run by a fairly simple system.

[ QUOTE ]
Better to freeze. I can somewhat understand a deer or antelope doing this when sensing a lion in it's presence, but only because they have probably seen other deer and antelope (their parents), do it

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, a lot of these defensive behaviors built upon the behavior that was originally there for other reasons -say, freezing when they saw a prey item, certain types of movement triggered this and it's a short jump from there to the opposite.
I can't remember the animal but some animals defecate as a defense. It's thought that this was originally an involuntary, nonadapted reaction due to various chemicals squirting out in the body in response to the predator. Over time it's been modified to have a certain effect, but the original behavior most likely did not.

[Rduke55]

Also, my favorite example of this behavior is a parasitic worm that invades the marsh snail. It makes the snail leave the mud and climb vegetation. Not only that but they invade it's antennae and turn them colorful, make them bulge and pulse so they look like a caterpillar. Along comes a bird and eats the snail and the parasites life cycle continues in the bird's gut.
Wrap your head around how that evolved.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you see a watch in a field you can infer it had a designer without requiring an explanation for the designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is entirely correct. Since watches as we know them do not self-replicate and have genes, there is no reasonable mechanism by which a watch could exist without a designer.

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe as a whole is designed by God, Who is not Himself a part of the universe, then logic doesn't require that He be designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll accept this in its conditional form as well. As others have said, the definition of the universe is a tricky one. But if we define our "universe" as the observable space and time we live in, it is possible for there to be something outside of our space-time that is not subject to its laws. For something to have always existed, it cannot be subject to time in the way we know it because then an infinite amount of time would have to have passed since its "creation" or "beginning", and an infinite amount of time can never pass. Therefore there must be "domains" where time has no meaning, or does not work as it does in our "universe". Of course this is beyond our comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is an ultimate explanation then it does not itself require explanation. Atheism doesn't escape this problem, it just makes the ultimate explanation irrational, which is self-contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the problem. Humans want explanations, we crave stories (For more on this in an entirely non-religious setting, read The Black Swan by Taleb). We make up stories to fit what we want to believe. But the universe does not owe us an explanation; it simply does not need to have one no matter how much we want it.

There is no evidence for god beyond hearsay, but evolution is a theory we have developed by examining evidence for hundreds of years. When I trust the scientists who have examined this evidence and crafted these theories, it is not faith, because I know that if I had the time, money and inclination, I could enter the relevant fields of study and examine the evidence myself. You however have no way to investigate miracles or cross examine witnesses of events that are claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago but that left no physical trace.

[ QUOTE ]
If the choice of ultimate truth is design or undesign, only design has explanatory power. Undesign explains nothing and destroys rationality, knowledge and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this does not follow. Lack of design or explanation does not destroy these things at all.

[Lestat]

Very interesting. Thanks!