Death.. Then what?

[Chaos]

Tell me, Jake.  Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions?  Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time.  ;)

The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure that's the intended effect.  But regardless, I'm just referring to the Alternate Dimensions portion of the theory.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion.  It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.

[Jake]

Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion.  It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.

Yup, I agree here. My argument is that the explanations for the conditions just happening to be perfect seem of similar likeliness as ID. It's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent. of course, this brings to light what Lingus stated earlier, which is that ID could be the cause of alternate dimensions and multiple universes and basically provided the statistical probability of life being created.

ID goes on one assumption. Intelligence made us. it doesn't even have to be a God, just something that actually has what I would describe as awareness. I'm not arguing that ID is more probable than other theories, because I don't have enough information to make such a decision. On the other hand, I find ID to be a viable option when presented amongst current theories that try to describe our existence.

[HamsterPants]

Actually, on that note, from the article I posted:  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

It's a simple statement, but when you really think about it, it makes a whole lot of sense. We can't really say the universe or that which we observe is not real. I can stop believing in it all I want, but it's still there. But those things which we believe to be true are real at least for the time we believe in them. Intelligent Design is part of some people's reality because they believe in it. Whereas for others, it is not because they do not believe in it.

Ah yes, and I suppose that the point I made was rather unrelated to begin with, in the quote that I used, it involved choices rather than beliefs, and I specifically said "your universe" as in, everything that you yourself are living. It's a first-person view...

So yeah....

Incidentally, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design wrong, I'm merely pointing out that there are other explanations for the "CONDITIONS THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE PERFECT" portion.  It's not a solid argument for ID to stand upon.

Yup, I agree here. My argument is that the explanations for the conditions just happening to be perfect seem of similar likeliness as ID. It's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent. of course, this brings to light what Lingus stated earlier, which is that ID could be the cause of alternate dimensions and multiple universes and basically provided the statistical probability of life being created.

ID goes on one assumption. Intelligence made us. it doesn't even have to be a God, just something that actually has what I would describe as awareness. I'm not arguing that ID is more probable than other theories, because I don't have enough information to make such a decision. On the other hand, I find ID to be a viable option when presented amongst current theories that try to describe our existence.

The point you made about "intelligence made us", I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

[Jake]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely. It's like creating a program that spits out random formations of code. Eventually, it will create code that resembles something intelligently made. It is not our place to argue that this code generator does not have the ability to create something useful, but rather if the generator could exist in the first place.

[HamsterPants]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

[Jake]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

[HamsterPants]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.

[Jake]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.

No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.

[Scotty]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.

No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.

Ouch!  Dude, I'm supposed to be the ultimate dick!

[Chaos]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.

No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.

Ouch!  Dude, I'm supposed to be the ultimate dick!

Unfortunately, it's the truth a lot of the time.  Douchebags want power over people, and when it comes to religion, people are more than willing to give said douchebags power.

[HamsterPants]

I have to say, it seems rather plausible, otherwise, how would lifeforms instinctively know to evolve, and on another note, what is instinct, and why does it seem to exist in all life?
The world changes frequently regardless of how perfect the conditions are, and yet life still adapts to the changes.

If there are infinite universes with an infinite number of combination's, the statistical probability of a universe being created that allows for the laws of evolution to exist is very likely.

Exactly.

Another question, assuming that it is infinite in mass, what would be the need for more than one universe?

Well, some would argue that you need more than one universe to argue why life is probable. If there was only one universe, it could bring into question why the laws of this specific universe are so fine tuned. Technically though, there is no "need" for anything... it just is.

And then, that's where religion comes in to give supposed needs for such things, namely 'existence' as a whole.

No, religion comes in to to pray on the weak minded, and throw in a bunch of other bullshit along with the belief in a God. That goes without saying that there are very intelligent religious people out there who have studied and understand why they believe the way they do, sadly, the majority of religious people are sheep that don't want to think for themselves.

Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.

[Jake]

Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.

I honestly have nothing against religion in general, only people and their reasons for following said religions. For example, if someone is a Buddhist because "it sounds correct", I think they're an idiot. Same goes for any other religion. On the other hand, if they have studied that individual religion, and have come to the logical conclusion in their mind that that religion holds truth for them, I support them 100%. Sadly, this is often not the case, and people who logically think about the truth usually don't follow a religion.

[HamsterPants]

Like Chaos said, that is true most of the time, but I will not agree that such is the case for all religion.
Druidism is a good example, also Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.

I honestly have nothing against religion in general, only people and their reasons for following said religions. For example, if someone is a Buddhist because "it sounds correct", I think they're an idiot. Same goes for any other religion. On the other hand, if they have studied that individual religion, and have come to the logical conclusion in their mind that that religion holds truth for them, I support them 100%. Sadly, this is often not the case, and people who logically think about the truth usually don't follow a religion.

Religion is not considered to be scientific, so exclusively approaching it intellectually is not exactly the best method to achieve the desired results.
I do agree, every religion should be heavily inspected, and one shouldn't stay in a religion just because they were raised in it, or because somebody they want to marry is in it. I don't know how many churches encourage their members to investigate every single detail of the religion, but I do know that Mormonism has a reputation for encouraging that. I always appreciated that about it too.
(Also, sorry if my comments may seem biased, most of the time I can only speak for Mormonism, because I know enough about it.)

[Jake]

Religion is not considered to be scientific, so exclusively approaching it intellectually is not exactly the best method to achieve the desired results.

So people should choose religion through emotion rather than rationalization?

[Lingus]

Sorry to jump back a bit, but you all seem to go off on tangents while I'm away from the computer... so to respond:

Tell me, Jake.  Do you know anything about String Theory, and Alternate Dimensions?  Same deal as my infinite universe and statistical certainty principle, except all dice rolls happened at the same time.  ;)

The only thing I really know about string theory is that it attempts to explain how the universe works using one theory. Anything else about it confuses me to the point of closing the window and banging my head against the wall.

I believe you are thinking of what is refered to as the Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory (I believe there's some differences in those two things, but that's the concept you're talking about.) String Theory is different.

There is no possible way to disprove ID. There is only observations that would make people less likely to believe in it.

I don't necessarily believe that to be true. In fact, the more people try to explain the universe, the more I'm inclined to believe in ID.

Anyways, I read *most* of the article you posted, and enjoyed it. The way he views perception and reality is very similar to my own observations. Very interesting read.

Perhaps I should have said: There is only observations that would make people more or less likely to believe in it.

It's gotten to the point where scientists are using alternate dimensions and multiple universes to explain that statistical probability of life without intent.

I'm curious, is this an issue for you? This act alone, theorizing on multiple universes or alternate dimensions, does not in itself negate the core concept of ID (as you pointed out that I mentioned). So why would it be a problem? You mentioned earlier something about keeping options open. I don't believe scientists are particularly trying to disprove the concept of an intelligently designed universe. Rather, they are scientifically looking at any and all possible theories. It is the opposite of, "The universe/life is so complex that it must have been intelligently designed." Instead it is, "The universe/life is so complex. Let's figure out what process may have brought it about, independant of the potential possibility of intelligent design."

With that said, there are likely scientists who think they are attempting to disprove ID, but these are not very good scientists. A good scientist wouldn't care about that part and would only care about learning the truth or gaining additional knowledge. This is why I always say these two topics are completely separate. You can learn all you want about the universe and it will tell you nothing of the possibilities of the "spiritual world," whether it exists or not. The two topics are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

On this note, the above two paragraphs is really what I don't like about the article you linked. It seems to be making a connection between these two topics. Pitting the scientific viewpoint against the religious. Making an inference that one would win out over the other or make one more or less plausible. That will never be the case. Yes, it may not take a biased stance on either side, but it is still in the debate. In my opinion, the debate itself is pointless.