Need an expert on divine design to explain

[Rolf Aalberg]

Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm

[Kalkidas]

"By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
precisely tailored structures."

Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
and "tailored".

This is intelligent design in action.

[Kermit]

On 17 May, 12:01, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>

If natural circumstances instead of a human researcher varied the
chemical gradients over time, would you expect the crystal reactions
to be different?

kermit

[Rolf Aalberg]

No. it is not. How is it intelligent design? Is not the experiment the
exact opposite: The stuff is left to itself and chemical reactions will
create the structures?

it is simply an experiment showing that inert, dead, nonliving matter
all by itself when left alone to itself create structures you wouldn't
have dreamed of.

All that was done was to manipulate chemical gradients; what happened
next was nature operating on it's own - the result was not predictable
from or preexistent in the chemicals.

The structures were not designed and made by the experimenters.

It is like I put animals of opposite sexes together in a cage; I have
not designed the offspring. The offspring is the result of actions
outside of my control. I only designed the experiment.

A tiger and a lion and we may get a liger or a tion.

But creationists are always unable to understand such simple things.

I may build an electric generator but it is the forces of nature itself
that generate the electricity. Without the forces, the generator would
no produce anything in million years.

When the conditions required for something to happen are present,
something will happen. Evolution is one of those things. I'll see you
demonstrate, prove that evolution can't happen. Be my guest.

[Kalkidas]

What does "natural circumstances" mean, and how would one determine
that they were the only circumstances operating?

[Kalkidas]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:39 +0200, Rolf Aalberg

I guess you didn't read the article.

[Mike Painter]

Hard to get a better definition. It is something that occurs in nature
under ordinary conditions.
If I drop a rock under natural circumstances it will fall down.

Science only deals with what it can measure. If you can show
measurably "circumstances" that are not natural then do so.

If just saying it were enough we would all be flying around in anti
gravity suits and be tall, wealthy, and good looking.

[Kalkidas]

But if you don't drop it, it won't. Therefore, you are included in the
"natural circumstances". In other words, an intelligent designer is
included in the "natural circumstances".

>Science only deals with what it can measure. If you can show
>measurably "circumstances" that are not natural then do so.

But the measurers (scientists) are included in any "natural
circumstance".

>If just saying it were enough we would all be flying around in anti
>gravity suits and be tall, wealthy, and good looking.

The article's headline is: "Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a
Beaker". Yet this is highly misleading. As the text of the article
indicates, the laboratory conditions were intelligently designed to
produce the desired result. The scientist even admitted:

""You can really collaborate with the self-assembly process," says
Noorduin. "The precipitation happens spontaneously, but if you want to
change something then you can just manipulate the conditions of the
reaction and sculpt the forms while they're growing.""

What is this? If "self-assembly" has a "collaborator", then how is it
self-assembly?

[jonathan]

"Rolf Aalberg" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn694f$e6m$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>> <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm
>>
>>
>> "By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
>> L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
>> Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
>> appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
>> he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
>> precisely tailored structures."
>>
>> Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
>> and "tailored".
>>
>> This is intelligent design in action.
>>
>
> No. it is not. How is it intelligent design? Is not the experiment the
> exact opposite: The stuff is left to itself and chemical reactions will
> create the structures?

Here's the abstract to the paper, it's Complexity Science
in action, an engineering dept looking at biological systems.
Darwin in abstract form so...any department can put nature
into their field.

The fractal designs they generated aren't new at all, only they're
generating them with chemical reactions instead of with a
computer printout. Bringing the fractal designs to life
so to speak.

I bet before long, the local Target Garden 'Dept' will have
shelves full of such natural designs, and as intricately
and finely detailed as can be imagined.


MATERIALS SCIENCE
Complexity from Simplicity
1.. Elias Vlieg
+Author Affiliations

1.. Radboud University Nijmegen, Institute for Molecules and Materials,
Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Netherlands.
1.. E-mail: e.v...@science.ru.nl

By studying natural shapes and processes, researchers have learned that the
key ingredient to arriving at complexity is the coupling between different
processes. This coupling leads to self-organization and is an essential
feature of life (1). In biominerals, such as diatom skeletons or abalone
shells, the interplay between calcium carbonate or similar minerals with
organic molecules can lead to highly functional materials with hierarchical
architectures and stunning beauty (2). On page 832 of this issue, Noorduin
et al. (3) bring the man-made design of complex shapes from simple
ingredients to a level of control that promises applications in fields such
as optics and catalysis.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/822.short



If anyone finds designing nearly perfect replicas of natural systems
interesting, they might find the math of L-systems fun.
You can see how a very simple set of deterministic equations
or a very simple relationships, iterated into itself, can
build such beautiful and complicated forms. The mathematical
representation of cell division.

A simple set of computer instructions like this below
can generate an biologically accurate representation
of various plants.


L-System Plants Tutorial

Weed {
Angle 50
Axiom +++++++++++++x
x=f[@.5+++++++++x]-f[@.4-----------!x]@.6x
}

"The replacement string for the weed x says draw a line (f), the stem of the
weed. Next, shrink the weed by .5, turn left 9*7.2=64.8 degrees, draw the
shrunken weed, and return to the stem ([@.5+++++++++x]). This draws the
lowest branch of the weed. Next, turn right slightly (7.2 degrees) and draw
another portion of the stem (-f). Continuing, shrink the weed by .4, turn
right 11*7.2=79.2 degrees, reverse the meaning of right and left, draw the
shrunken weed, and return to the stem ([@.4-----------!x]). Finally, draw
the weed at .6 size (@.6x).

Here is how the Weed L-system looks."
http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/lsys/plants.html


Fractint L-Systems Tutorial Main
http://www.nahee.com/spanky/www/fractint/lsys/tutor.html

>
> it is simply an experiment showing that inert, dead, nonliving matter all
> by itself when left alone to itself create structures you wouldn't have
> dreamed of.
>
> All that was done was to manipulate chemical gradients; what happened next
> was nature operating on it's own - the result was not predictable from or
> preexistent in the chemicals.
>
> The structures were not designed and made by the experimenters.

I think the terms natural and man-made should be defined more
clearly first. Natural is a process where the final product is
allowed to emerge as it will. While man-made would be
where the final product is defined in advance, with the parts
and conditions manipulated accordingly.

If you can predict the future, it's not the product of an evolving
or natural system. And there lies the Great Contradiction
between objective certainty and understanding nature.

So are those 'beautiful flowers' created by the researchers
man made or natural? If the reactions are tweaked along
the way for a desired outcome it's man-made, if the
initial instructions are left alone play out as they will, then
it's natural.

>
> It is like I put animals of opposite sexes together in a cage; I have not
> designed the offspring. The offspring is the result of actions outside of
> my control. I only designed the experiment.
>
> A tiger and a lion and we may get a liger or a tion.
>
> But creationists are always unable to understand such simple things.
>
> I may build an electric generator but it is the forces of nature itself
> that generate the electricity. Without the forces, the generator would no
> produce anything in million years.
>
> When the conditions required for something to happen are present,
> something will happen. Evolution is one of those things. I'll see you
> demonstrate, prove that evolution can't happen. Be my guest.
>

Besides, a truly intelligent design should be when the systems
design themselves. Where the only 'intelligent' involvement
is setting the initial conditions or instructions, and it takes care
of itself from that point on.


Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions

Definition of Self-Organization

"The essence of self-organization is that system structure often appears
without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system. In other
words, the constraints on form (i.e. organization) of interest to us are
internal to the system, resulting from the interactions among the components
and usually independent of the physical nature of those components. The
organization can evolve in either time or space, maintain a stable form or
show transient phenomena. General resource flows within self-organized
systems are expected (dissipation), although not critical to the concept
itself.
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

[jonathan]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:v3jdp812nuv1jivqg...@4ax.com...

Wouldn't an intelligent design be where the only involvement
of intelligence is with the initial conditions? And from there the
systems design themselves, while the final product or the
output side converges towards the better solution?

If someone tweaks the process along the way for a
desired outcome or predictable future, then it's a
man-made system. If allowed to evolve as it will
it's a natural system.

Just because a person disturbed a natural system doesn't
automatically make it a man-made system. Only if
the changes are done to achieve a desired outcome.
A society can behave in a natural way.

Nature uses a specific decision making process and
allows the future to evolve as it will.
Man-made decides the future in advance, and the
system is manipulated accordingly to that end.

>
>>Science only deals with what it can measure. If you can show
>>measurably "circumstances" that are not natural then do so.
>
> But the measurers (scientists) are included in any "natural
> circumstance".

Using the behavioral side, not the specific system
component details, to decide natural from man-made
puts the observer back into the observations, so we
can tell the difference between the two. A person
can behave in either a natural and man-made way.

[RAM]

And the measure of scientists and the consequential actions of a
scientists reveal independence empirical independence.

So your implied empirical interaction term is nonexistent.

>
> >If just saying it were enough we would all be flying around in anti
> >gravity suits and be tall, wealthy, and good looking.
>
> The article's headline is: "Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a
> Beaker". Yet this is highly misleading. As the text of the article
> indicates, the laboratory conditions were intelligently designed to
> produce the desired result. The scientist even admitted:
>
> ""You can really collaborate with the self-assembly process," says
> Noorduin. "The precipitation happens spontaneously, but if you want to
> change something then you can just manipulate the conditions of the
> reaction and sculpt the forms while they're growing.""
>
> What is this? If "self-assembly" has a "collaborator", then how is it
> self-assembly?

The crystals will grow independently of human intervention. He is
only varying the input to structure the flower pattern itself not the
self-assembly which is inherent in the crystalization process.

And obviously the flower is created with human intent. What it
demonstrates is that complex patterns could be generated by the
accidental timing of nature.

Just like you are a result of the accidental timing of nature.

I know you think you were intelligently designed but your posts
suggest otherwise.

[David Canzi]

The chemical gradients are a blunt tool producing finely detailed
results. What's going on here is mostly self-assembly. A similar
process of self-assembly, without any experimenters meddling,
produces the elaborate symmetries of snowflakes.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:01:27 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

So is my computer (the op system, not so much...), and no
one seems to claim otherwise. But you're implying a false
dichotomy, that because something *can* be manipulated by an
intelligent agent it *must* be the result of intelligent
action. Crystals will grow from a solution with zero
intelligent input; all the intelligent input does is
determine the nature of that growth. This is analogous to
the relation between unguided evolution and the selective
breeding performed as part of animal husbandry.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:10 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
><free...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>On 17 May, 12:01, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>>>
>>> <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:
>>>
>>> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm
>>>
>>> "By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
>>> L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
>>> Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
>>> appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
>>> he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
>>> precisely tailored structures."
>>>
>>> Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
>>> and "tailored".
>>>
>>> This is intelligent design in action.
>>
>>If natural circumstances instead of a human researcher varied the
>>chemical gradients over time, would you expect the crystal reactions
>>to be different?

>What does "natural circumstances" mean,

Circumstances uninfluenced by intelligent guidance.

> and how would one determine
>that they were the only circumstances operating?

Examine the circumstances for intelligent guidance.

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:41:12 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>
>>Hard to get a better definition. It is something that occurs in nature
>>under ordinary conditions.
>>If I drop a rock under natural circumstances it will fall down.
>
>But if you don't drop it, it won't. Therefore, you are included in the
>"natural circumstances". In other words, an intelligent designer is
>included in the "natural circumstances".

As I said it is hard to find a better definition.
Your grasping for any excuse when I described the natural circumstance
that deals with the effects of gravity implies that you have no real
interest.

Why not just say goddidit, ignore the evidence and move on.

[Rolf Aalberg]

You are so right. We can never, never ever determine if anything was
caused by divine intervention - or not.

That's why I don't recommend you drive a car or travel by air, you never
know when God strikes.

Or maybe you can?

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:rv9dp89bgdp2bsklj...@4ax.com...

When I dunk a piece of blue litmus paper in acid it turns red. If the wind
blows a litmus paper into the acid, it'll also turn red. One is deliberately
manipulated, the other a 'natural event', but the result is the same. If I
showed you the two pieces of red litmus you wouldn't be able to tell which
one is manipulated and which one is natural.

Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?


--
Malte Runz

[Harry K]

How so. Unlike you, he not only read it, he understood it.

Harry K

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:29:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:01:27 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>><rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:
>>>
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm
>>
>>
>>"By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
>>L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
>>Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
>>appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
>>he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
>>precisely tailored structures."
>>
>>Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
>>and "tailored".
>>
>>This is intelligent design in action.
>
>So is my computer (the op system, not so much...), and no
>one seems to claim otherwise. But you're implying a false
>dichotomy, that because something *can* be manipulated by an
>intelligent agent it *must* be the result of intelligent
>action. Crystals will grow from a solution with zero
>intelligent input; all the intelligent input does is
>determine the nature of that growth. This is analogous to
>the relation between unguided evolution and the selective
>breeding performed as part of animal husbandry.

[Crickets...]

[Kalkidas]

But the litmus paper is intelligently designed, whether you or some
so-called "natural circumstance" puts it into acid. So without the
intelligently designed litmus paper, neither side of your example
would ever occur.

[snip]

[Kalkidas]

The proper conclusion is that, since materialistic science can never
determine whether or not something was caused by Divine intervention,
the choice to attribute material processes to Divine intervention or
not is due to some other kind of knowledge, not the knowledge of
materialistic science.

Therefore, there is no scientific basis for either accepting or
rejecting Divine intervention, and those who claim that materialistic
science supports their atheism are mistaken, as are those who claim
that materialistic science supports their theism.

[Kalkidas]

The elaborate symmetries of snowflakes bear little resemblance to the
elaborate asymmetries of organisms.

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:6fbip8hnbdpqs7pj9...@4ax.com...

That's not the point. Litmus paper turns red every time, no matter how it
comes into contact with acid. It's a 'natural reaction'.

>
> [snip]

Don't snip this time:

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Then the word "natural" is irrelevant. It's just a "reaction". So the
question of what is a "natural circumstance" remains unanswered.

>>
>> [snip]
>
>Don't snip this time:
>
>Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
>felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?

We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
tackle that one.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:

>> [snip]

>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
>> felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>
> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
> tackle that one.

Nature: All that exists.
The Supernatural: Everything else.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

Non sequitur. Litmus paper is intelligently designed as a convenience
for the user. The litmus reaction itself is natural, and will happen
regardless of artificial contrivances. More to the point, litmus paper
is an analogue of the actual point under discussion, which relates the
chemical reactions described in the OP. An intelligent agent
artificially manipulated natural reactions, so the word, and Kermit's
question, remain relevant.

Kalkidas' original point, that the science article is an example of
intelligent design, is technically correct but misleading. By
focusing on the agent and ignoring the natural processes being
manipulated, Kalkidas implies that the article describes an analogue
for Intelligent Design of life, when in fact it's a closer analogue to
manufacturing integrated circuits, which are also the result of
intelligent design and not Intelligent Design.

>>> [snip]
>>
>>Don't snip this time:
>>
>>Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
>>felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>
>We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>tackle that one.

So what is your definition?

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:34:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
>>> felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>>
>> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>> tackle that one.
>
>Nature: All that exists.
>The Supernatural: Everything else.

Then "nature" is undefined, by definition!

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:18:25 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

The experiment was intelligently designed. The outcome of the
experiment required that design. It cannot be inferred from this that
the outcome would, or even could, occur without the intelligently
designed experimental apparatus.

This is always the problem with intelligently designed experiments
which are taken as support for the existence of unintelligent,
undesigned processes.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:03:56 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Litmus is a naturally-occurring substance derived from some
lichens; it's not "intelligently designed".

[jillery]

That's what I said.

>The outcome of the
>experiment required that design.

The outcome also required those natural chemical reactions.

>It cannot be inferred from this that
>the outcome would, or even could, occur without the intelligently
>designed experimental apparatus.
>
>This is always the problem with intelligently designed experiments
>which are taken as support for the existence of unintelligent,
>undesigned processes.

I suppose everybody could wait around for a million years or so while
they set aside the entire world to naturally recreate the conditions
as you demand, but most people recognize that setting up artificial
conditions are faster yet still prove the point.

>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>Don't snip this time:
>>>>
>>>>Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
>>>>felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>>>
>>>We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>>>tackle that one.
>>
>>
>>So what is your definition?

No answer. No surprise.

[John S. Wilkins]

No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
sentences that are true.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Robert Camp]

Enthusiastically agreed.

Now, how do you feel about inference to undefined phenomena offered as
scientific explanation?

[Robert Camp]

As I completely misread your response to Mark (thought you said
supernatural was undefined), I retract my comments.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> sentences that are true.

Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
existential operators?

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Burkhard]

On 21 May, 13:38, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,

> �j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> > terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> > sentences that are true.
>
> Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
> existential operators?
>

Of course. It is a simple ontological principle that if something
exists at all, there will be a website showing how it is used in
porn.

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:21 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:34:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>> >>> [snip]
>> >>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he,
>> >>> if he felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>> >>
>> >> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>> >> tackle that one.
>> >
>> >Nature: All that exists.
>> >The Supernatural: Everything else.
>>
>> Then "nature" is undefined, by definition!
>
>No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
>terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
>sentences that are true.

"all that exists" is indefinite -- i.e. undefined --, since it cannot
in principle be known whether "all that exists" is infinite or finite.

Therefore "nature" as "defined" my mark, is undefined.

[eridanus]

El lunes, 20 de mayo de 2013 18:16:05 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:

I think it is easy to comment on this. nature is all that is observed
around us. Even people that tell that god was speaking to them, or that
they saw an UFO, or the virgin Mary was speaking to them standing on
the branches of some olive tree.

This is nature and not supernatural, except if you want to call it
supernatural swindle. Well, even supernatural swindle is a part of
nature, like it part of nature an hypo defecating in a zoo.

Then, all that can be observed, or seen, even people telling lies,
like politicians, to present an easy target, is a part of nature.
Even the bible is a part of nature, for it is a book. What is not a
part of nature is god, for it is hidden to our eyes. If god suddently
appears, it will them like some guy telling about an UFO seen in the
airport. As a prove that it was an UFO he said, the compass of the
airport began to turn like crazy, by the presence of the UFO.
So, lies are also a part of nature. We cannot engage in a minimal
argument without considering lies an important element. Even false
logic is a part of nature, for it is a way people is swindling other
people.

Eridanus

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:15:06 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Nor does that affect the definition. Whether it's finite or
infinite, "all that exists" is quite clear and unambiguous;
it's irrelevant to that definition that we don't know how
much that is. I'm sure you can think of subjects in which
quantity, known or unknown, doesn't affect definition.

>Therefore "nature" as "defined" my mark, is undefined.

Nope. You just don't like the definition so you reject it.

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:vgekp85nts13a492e...@4ax.com...

>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>
> >"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:6fbip8hnbdpqs7pj9...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:45:52 +0200, "Malte Runz"
> >> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> >>

(snip)

> >> >When I dunk a piece of blue litmus paper in acid it turns red. If the
> >> >wind
> >> >blows a litmus paper into the acid, it'll also turn red. One is
> >> >deliberately
> >> >manipulated, the other a 'natural event', but the result is the same.
> >>
> >> But the litmus paper is intelligently designed, whether you or some
> >> so-called "natural circumstance" puts it into acid. So without the
> >> intelligently designed litmus paper, neither side of your example
> >> would ever occur.
> >
> >That's not the point. Litmus paper turns red every time, no matter how it
> >comes into contact with acid. It's a 'natural reaction'.
>
> Then the word "natural" is irrelevant. It's just a "reaction". So the
> question of what is a "natural circumstance" remains unanswered.

The circumstances are irrelevant.

>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >
> >Don't snip this time:
> >
> >Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if
> >he
> >felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>
> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
> tackle that one.

No we don't. Can the designer create 'reactions' that violate the laws of
nature, as we know them today? Can he eliminate gravity, change the speed of
light, make a tiger materialize on the Moon, turn litmus green with acid?




--
Malte Runz

[Burkhard]

On 21 May, 17:15, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:21 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

Why would the definition of a term tell me the extension of a term?

[eridanus]

El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 18:49:36 UTC+1, Bob Casanova escribi�:

there is small caveat there. If we define nature as all that exist we
are not telling a great thing. For we only have a faint notice of the
parts of nature that we can see, or observe, even if indirectly. In
physics we have many examples of things we cannot see, but that we
know of them, by some math deductions. Then, we have "discovered" a
lot of things that cannot be seen, like neutrinos, neutrons, protons,
electrons, etc. Even more modern, we are already talking about
"dark matter" and "dark energy", because of some math considerations
and astronomical observations.

It is a little like the infinite numbers that can exist between number 1
and number 2, or between number 1.2 and 1.3 We cannot see any of those
numbers, but we think they exist somewhat "in our brain" by reasoning
in some particular way. I think it was Cantor that spoke about this
the first time.

But people that pretend that god exists does not present a sort or
mathematical argument to prove that god exist. By the way, Cantor
believed in god. But he never engaged to prove god existence in a
mathematical manner. If you believe in god try to devise a mathematical
argument to prove that it exists. Philosophy, so far as I know, is not
valid for this.

Eridanus

[Kalkidas]

Here's the problem: Suppose that "nature" means "everything that
exists".

OK. Now give a definition of "exists" without circularity, i.e. by
saying "exists" means "is part of nature".

[air]

Like Curiosity?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/mars-rover-curiosity-draws-penis-on-surface-of-red-planet/story-fn5fsgyc-1226629136574

[air]

On 20 May, 13:19, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:18:25 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

OK - so where do we draw this line that you so fervently believe in?

Consider the following course of events - I watch a hibiscus flower
petal, carried gently on a breeze, drift to a an acidic mineral spring
located near its origin and change color. I watch another petal drift
over the hill and land in an alkaline lake and change to a different
color.

Natural? Designed?

I take two hibiscus flower petals and drop one in an acidic mineral
spring and the other in an alkaline lake.

Natural? Designed?

I take two buckets of water home, one from an acidic mineral spring
and the other from an alkaline lake and in my kitchen I drop a
hibiscus petal in each.

Natural? Designed?

I prepare two solutions; one of low pH using 100% natural non GMO
organic locally sourced vinegar and the other of high pH using lye. I
drop hibiscus petals in each and they change color.

Natural? Designed?

I try the same experiment with a cabbage leaf and some blackberry
juice and I observer that in each case the materials have a different
color in the low and high pH solutions.

Natural? Designed?

I prepare 'natural litmus paper' using extracts from hibiscus leaves
(google it up if you like) and observe that when exposed to low or
high pH the color differs.

Natural? Designed?

I separate a variety of coal tar dyes from a complex mixture of
hydrocarbons and observe that some of them change color when they are
exposed to low or high pH.

Natural? Designed?

I put these dyes in paper and sell them to chemists who use them to
test pH

Natural? Designed?

Your premise is so ill conditioned as to be meaningless. Quit while
you are ahead.

[eridanus]

El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 20:14:50 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:

even if we define nature as all that exist, we are not solving any
metaphysical problem. For we only can speculate with the elements
of nature that we are able to observe, directly or indirectly.

I do not understand from where comes this contamination of speculating
about matters that we do not know. We can easily be in error with
the matters we know a little. It is like in a trial. A person is accused
of murder. We barely know him. We keep hearing lots and lost of
testimonies for a week or more. We here contradictory information about
this case, and we are in a jury and we have to speculate on which part of
proves are good and which are wrong. We can be right or wrong in this case
for we cannot be sure if he accused is a real murder or not. But it
makes sense that we consider the case, we had been nominated for the jury.
We have to give an answer to the judge about this case.

But an imaginary case of murder we do not know anything about, we do not
know who was the victim, who is the accused, what are the proves, for the
data of the trial are not known to us, we cannot give a reply to an
imaginary judge, for we do not know anything about the case.

It is the same to speculate about some questions about the properties of
a universe we do not know but in a limited mode. I cannot understand
how can we engage in speculations about this.

Eridanus

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:26:00 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All designed. There is no "line". Not a blade of grass moves without
the will of God.

Science without consciousness is an illusion.

[J. J. Lodder]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:34:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
> > <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
> > >> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> > >>> [snip]
> > >>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he,
> > >>> if he felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
> > >>
> > >> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
> > >> tackle that one.
> > >
> > >Nature: All that exists.
> > >The Supernatural: Everything else.
> >
> > Then "nature" is undefined, by definition!
>
> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> sentences that are true.

So next we define what is true,

Jan

[air]

On 21 May, 15:42, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:26:00 -0700 (PDT), air <airbowl...@gmail.com>

contradiction of previous assertions noted

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Lack of specifying of alleged contradictions noted.

[John S. Wilkins]

He thinks this not knowing of the intension/extension distinction. Must
be a Meinongian...

>
>
> >
> > Therefore "nature" as "defined" my mark, is undefined.

[John S. Wilkins]

A sentence that denotes, silly. Tarski sentences, you know!

[Burkhard]

On May 21, 11:26�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

I reply thusly: prrrrrrrrrft

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

>> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
>> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
>> sentences that are true.

>Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
>existential operators?

Waaah! You broke my brain.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Burkhard]

On May 21, 11:26�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

I reply thusly: prrrrrrrrrft

[John S. Wilkins]

What is the logical form of that?

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:rdjnp8lk6ocj9ntbc...@4ax.com...

(snip)

> ... Not a blade of grass moves without
> the will of God.

So God controls every particle in the universe. Does that mean he can make
litmus turn green in acid? I want a yes or no from you, in case you haven't
noticed, oh slippery one.

--
Malte Runz

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 07:24:25 UTC+1, Malte Runz escribi�:

according to some morons, the tornadoes of Oklahoma were a god's punishment
for they were permitting the marriage of gays.

Eridanus

[Mark Isaak]

"Kalkidas" is indefinite -- i.e. undefined --, since it cannot in
principle be known whether "Kalkidas" ever had a mole on his left
shoulder. Therefore "Kalkidas" is undefined.

Then, since the preceding argument came from nobody, we may ignore it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Kalkidas]

The real moron is the one who runs his mouth about God without knowing
Him.

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:fcmpp8hv5cp281j14...@4ax.com...

Your refusal to answer my simple question is noticed.


--
Malte Runz

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,

It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
using the Socratic method.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l39ky2.1sau2k1axw9ggN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

Argument by Bronx Cheer.

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 15:43:59 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:

and who knows god? You?

Eridanus

[Kalkidas]

Sorry, I don't play this infantile shit.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

Of course.

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:an4qp8pbfto2a85jd...@4ax.com...

I'll bet you've thought about it, though. But calling the question infantile
doesn't make the dilemma go away.

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:qo4qp8p9ntk9fh5m4...@4ax.com...

Obviously not very well.

--
Malte Runz

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:24:00 +0200, "Malte Runz"

It is your tactics that are infantile, namely your tantrum of
demanding an answer, and your feigned righteous indignation when you
don't get an answer.

Mature individuals don't engage in such nonsense. If you want a
dialog, be civil.

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:ekeqp8h1aa4b3t4r6...@4ax.com...

> demanding an answer, ...

Tantrum? I asked a few times, and never raised my voice.


> ... and your feigned righteous indignation when you

> don't get an answer.

No, no, no, I'm not indignant at all. I actually find it amusing that you
can't answer a simple question. It more or less proves my point.

> Mature individuals don't engage in such nonsense. If you want a
> dialog, be civil.

I asked politely, and of course I have the right to be insistent. If you
don't want to, or are unable to answer the question, you should say so
clearly. Circumlocuting my question, yet still engaging in a dialogue, can
hardly
be called mature and civil. What was the word you used? Infantile. Right.


--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:ekeqp8h1aa4b3t4r6...@4ax.com...

> demanding an answer, ...

Tantrum? I asked a few times, and never raised my voice.

> ... and your feigned righteous indignation when you

> don't get an answer.

No, no, no, I'm not indignant at all. I actually find it amusing that you
can't answer a simple question. It more or less proves my point.

> Mature individuals don't engage in such nonsense. If you want a
> dialog, be civil.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
>> >> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
>> >> sentences that are true.
>>
>> >Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
>> >existential operators?
>>
>> Waaah! You broke my brain.

>It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
>using the Socratic method.

You mean the de Sade variation of that, don't you?

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/22/13 11:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

>>>
>>>> according to some morons, the tornadoes of Oklahoma were a god's punishment
>>>> for they were permitting the marriage of gays.
>>
>>> The real moron is the one who runs his mouth about God without knowing
>>> Him.
>>
>> and who knows god? You?
>
> Of course.

As I was about to say, the real moron is the one who believes he knows God.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> >> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> >> >> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> >> >> sentences that are true.
> >>
> >> >Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
> >> >existential operators?
> >>
> >> Waaah! You broke my brain.
>
> >It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
> >using the Socratic method.
>
> You mean the de Sade variation of that, don't you?

I like that. I shall use the Socratic Sadistic method in teaching from
now on.

[John S. Wilkins]

I used Sraffa's response to WIttgenstein's logical atomism to prove a
point.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 01:20:35 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Of course, there are different kinds of questions, and different
responses to them. Malte Runz' question is relevant to his argument
and to the topic. Kalkidas is claiming the question is that of a
spammer. So Kalkidas is asserting a false moral equivalence, which is
a common thing to do in T.O.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:49:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/22/13 11:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> according to some morons, the tornadoes of Oklahoma were a god's punishment
>>>>> for they were permitting the marriage of gays.
>>>
>>>> The real moron is the one who runs his mouth about God without knowing
>>>> Him.
>>>
>>> and who knows god? You?
>>
>> Of course.
>
>As I was about to say, the real moron is the one who believes he knows God.

I don't "believe" I know Him. I know Him.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<fb6a7775-dd5f-4a13...@e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 21 May, 13:38, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,

> >  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> > > terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> > > sentences that are true.
> >

> > Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
> > existential operators?
> >

> Of course. It is a simple ontological principle that if something
> exists at all, there will be a website showing how it is used in
> porn.

Ah rule 34.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<9a8f29e6-bcab-42c4...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
air <airbo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 May, 09:08, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 21 May, 13:38, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:> In article
> > <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > >  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > > No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> > > > terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> > > > sentences that are true.
> >
> > > Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
> > > existential operators?
> >
> > Of course. It is a simple ontological principle that if something
> > exists at all, there will be a website showing how  it is used in
> > porn.
>

> Like Curiosity?
>
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/mars-rover-curiosity-draws-penis-on
> -surface-of-red-planet/story-fn5fsgyc-1226629136574

Whoever was controlling Curiosity was (evidently) a dick.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:55:10 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

Wilkins) wrote:

>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> >> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
>> >> >> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
>> >> >> sentences that are true.
>> >>
>> >> >Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
>> >> >existential operators?
>> >>
>> >> Waaah! You broke my brain.
>>
>> >It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
>> >using the Socratic method.
>>
>> You mean the de Sade variation of that, don't you?
>
>I like that. I shall use the Socratic Sadistic method in teaching from
>now on.

Is that where you torture students for your own pleasure?

[jillery]

How do you tell the difference?

[R. Dean]

On 5/19/2013 5:45 AM, Malte Runz wrote:
> "Kalkidas" skrev i meddelelsen

> news:rv9dp89bgdp2bsklj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <free...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 May, 12:01, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>>>>
>>>> <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm
>>>>
>>>> "By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
>>>> L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
>>>> Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
>>>> appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
>>>> he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
>>>> precisely tailored structures."
>>>>
>>>> Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
>>>> and "tailored".
>>>>
>>>> This is intelligent design in action.
>>>
>>> If natural circumstances instead of a human researcher varied the
>>> chemical gradients over time, would you expect the crystal reactions
>>> to be different?
>>>
>>> kermit
>>
>> What does "natural circumstances" mean, and how would one determine
>> that they were the only circumstances operating?
>
> When I dunk a piece of blue litmus paper in acid it turns red. If the wind
> blows a litmus paper into the acid, it'll also turn red. One is deliberately
> manipulated, the other a 'natural event', but the result is the same. If I
> showed you the two pieces of red litmus you wouldn't be able to tell which
> one is manipulated and which one is natural.

>
> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he, if he
> felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>

Maybe the Designer designed the laws of physics. If so, is it not
reasonable that it transcends the laws of physics? Yet, it does not
interfere with their functioning. This is crucial to science. IE that
the laws of physics are predictable, logical and determinable. If this
were not true, science could not work. For science to work, the laws of
physics can not be fickle, capricious or whimsical.

>

[R. Dean]

On 5/20/2013 11:34 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]

>>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he,
>>> if he
>>> felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>>

>> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>> tackle that one.
>
> Nature: All that exists.
> The Supernatural: Everything else.
>

You cannot know this. Does intelligent life exist elsewhere in
the universe? We don't know! By your definition this is a supernatural
matter.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:14 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since you seem to agree that the laws of physics work as if no
designer exists, then *for the purposes of discussing physics*, it
would make sense to dispense with that unnecessary character.

[John S. Wilkins]

That's a side effect.

[Malte Runz]

"R. Dean" skrev i meddelelsen news:Cufnt.85821$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

> Maybe the Designer designed the laws of physics. ...

It's irrelevant how the laws of physics came about (in this case).

> ... If so, is it not reasonable that it transcends the laws of physics?
> ...

"it transcends". What is "it"?

> ... Yet, it does not

> interfere with their functioning. This is crucial to science. IE that
> the laws of physics are predictable, logical and determinable. If this
> were not true, science could not work. For science to work, the laws of
> physics can not be fickle, capricious or whimsical.

I know, and that's why I ask if the Designer/God can overrule the laws or
not. It's a question that calls for a yes or no answer, but it seems to be
causing theists problems.


--
Malte Runz

[Walter Bushell]

In article <knjn74$798$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> >> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
> >> >> terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
> >> >> sentences that are true.
> >>
> >> >Is there literature concerning the concept of bondage between
> >> >existential operators?
> >>
> >> Waaah! You broke my brain.
>
> >It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
> >using the Socratic method.
>
> You mean the de Sade variation of that, don't you?

Socrates was sentenced to die for corrupting the minds of the youth of
Athens. He showed them the truth and that was thought to destroy the
social fabric.

[walksalone]

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
news:1l3bt3b.ia3fke7zr4soN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:

> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:55:10 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <kngspq$4rr$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> >> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <1l37y1t.12ov4ux1o8h5mnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> >> >> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

snip

>> >> >> Waaah! You broke my brain.

>> >> >It's all John's fault, he corrupted my mind first. Mayhap, he was
>> >> >using the Socratic method.

>> >> You mean the de Sade variation of that, don't you?

>> >I like that. I shall use the Socratic Sadistic method in teaching
>> >from now on.

>> Is that where you torture students for your own pleasure?

> That's a side effect.

Side effect, or bonus?

walksalone who is not sure he really wants to know. But inquiring minds
& all that.

ABASEMENT, n. A decent and customary mental attitude in the
presence of wealth of power. Peculiarly appropriate in an
employee when addressing an employer.
Devils dictionary

[Stephanus]

On May 17, 5:41�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:43:07 -0700, Mike Painter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:10 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> >><freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On 17 May, 12:01, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:15:07 +0200, Rolf Aalberg
>
> >>>> <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a Beaker:
>
> >>>> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142218.htm
>
> >>>> "By simply manipulating chemical gradients in a beaker of fluid, Wim
> >>>> L. Noorduin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of
> >>>> Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and lead author of a paper
> >>>> appearing on the cover of the May 17 issue of Science, has found that
> >>>> he can control the growth behavior of these crystals to create
> >>>> precisely tailored structures."
>
> >>>> Notice the terms "manipulating" and "he can control..." and "create"
> >>>> and "tailored".
>
> >>>> This is intelligent design in action.
>
> >>>If natural circumstances instead of a human researcher varied the
> >>>chemical gradients over time, would you expect the crystal reactions
> >>>to be different?
>
> >>>kermit
>
> >>What does "natural circumstances" mean, and how would one determine
> >>that they were the only circumstances operating?
>

> >Hard to get a better definition. It is something that occurs in nature
> >under ordinary conditions.
> >If I drop a rock under natural circumstances it will fall down.
>
> But if you don't drop it, it won't. Therefore, you are included in the
> "natural circumstances". In other words, an intelligent designer is
> included in the "natural circumstances".
>
> >Science only deals with what it can measure. If you can show
> >measurably "circumstances" that are not natural then do so.
>
> But the measurers (scientists) are included in any "natural
> circumstance".
>
> >If just saying it were enough we would all be flying around in anti
> >gravity suits and be tall, wealthy, and good looking.
>
> The article's headline is: "Beautiful 'Flowers' Self-Assemble in a
> Beaker". Yet this is highly misleading. As the text of the article
> indicates, the laboratory conditions were intelligently designed to
> produce the desired result. The scientist even admitted:
>
> ""You can really collaborate with the self-assembly process," says
> Noorduin. "The precipitation happens spontaneously, but if you want to
> change something then you can just manipulate the conditions of the
> reaction and sculpt the forms while they're growing.""
>
> What is this? If "self-assembly" has a "collaborator", then how is it
> self-assembly?

Same problem as with the monkeys typing Shakespeare, even they did ,
for whom would it be meaningful without an a priori mind ? Without a
mind it would be as random as anything else.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:14 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes. It's the "laws" that do the predicting, i.e. the governing, of
matter and energy. Therefore, the "laws" cannot themselves be products
of matter and energy.

So if they're not products of matter and energy, then there is
something else in existence other than matter and energy.

Some folks don't seem to notice that fact.

[Mark Isaak]

What we know or do not know never enters into the definition. Only gods
get to try that trick.

[Mark Isaak]

You mean Her.

[RAM]

All social scientists are aware of this "fact?". Phenomena by the
way is a much better descriptor. And they do not hypostatize, reify,
or objective this "fact?" as evidence for supernatural phenomena.

[Kalkidas]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:21:01 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/22/13 6:25 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:49:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/13 11:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> according to some morons, the tornadoes of Oklahoma were a god's punishment
>>>>>>> for they were permitting the marriage of gays.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The real moron is the one who runs his mouth about God without knowing
>>>>>> Him.
>>>>>
>>>>> and who knows god? You?
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> As I was about to say, the real moron is the one who believes he knows God.
>>
>> I don't "believe" I know Him. I know Him.
>
>You mean Her.

No, I mean Him.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:21:01 -0700, Mark Isaak

<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/22/13 6:25 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:49:27 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/13 11:49 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> according to some morons, the tornadoes of Oklahoma were a god's punishment
>>>>>>> for they were permitting the marriage of gays.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The real moron is the one who runs his mouth about God without knowing
>>>>>> Him.
>>>>>
>>>>> and who knows god? You?
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> As I was about to say, the real moron is the one who believes he knows God.
>>
>> I don't "believe" I know Him. I know Him.
>
>You mean Her.

I hope he didn't mean "know" in a Biblical way. Know what I mean?
<nudge,wink>... say no more.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:58:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:

Where does the definition require that we know anything at
all?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:16:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

That's because it's not a fact, it's an assertion based on a
fallacy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:25:38 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

So you believe...but I know better.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:30:20 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

See, already you're wrong. It's neither.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:49:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:15:06 -0700, the following appeared

>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>

>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:21 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>>Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>>Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:34:22 -0700, Mark Isaak
>>>> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>>>> >> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>>>> >>> [snip]

>>>> >>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he,
>>>> >>> if he felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>>>> >>

>>>> >> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>>>> >> tackle that one.
>>>> >
>>>> >Nature: All that exists.
>>>> >The Supernatural: Everything else.
>>>>

>>>> Then "nature" is undefined, by definition!
>>>

>>>No, it's all that exists. That's a pretty good definition. In logical
>>>terms, it is all that is covered by a bounded existential operator in
>>>sentences that are true.
>>

>>"all that exists" is indefinite -- i.e. undefined --, since it cannot
>>in principle be known whether "all that exists" is infinite or finite.
>

>Nor does that affect the definition. Whether it's finite or
>infinite, "all that exists" is quite clear and unambiguous;
>it's irrelevant to that definition that we don't know how
>much that is. I'm sure you can think of subjects in which
>quantity, known or unknown, doesn't affect definition.

[Crickets...]

>>Therefore "nature" as "defined" my mark, is undefined.
>
>Nope. You just don't like the definition so you reject it.

As I stated...

[R. Dean]

On 5/23/2013 12:20 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/22/13 7:58 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 11:34 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/20/13 8:03 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:06 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>>>> <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Is the Intelligent Desinger bound by the laws of nature, or could he,
>>>>> if he
>>>>> felt the need, turn the litmus paper green in acid?
>>>>
>>>> We'll have to wait until "nature" is more clearly defined until we
>>>> tackle that one.
>>>
>>> Nature: All that exists.
>>> The Supernatural: Everything else.
>>>
>> You cannot know this. Does intelligent life exist elsewhere in
>> the universe? We don't know! By your definition this is a supernatural
>> matter.
>
> What we know or do not know never enters into the definition. Only gods
> get to try that trick.
>

You defined it above! How else do we explain the 11 mystical dimensions
of time and space?