Intelligent Design

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Joad
Total Posts:  775
Joined  04-12-2006
 
 
 
01 April 2007 05:53
 

burt,

We accept entropy. I see no reason not to suppose an anti-entropy.

Everything strives for it’s maximum potential because everything is being reduced to its minimum potential.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
01 April 2007 11:38
 

[quote author=“Joad”]burt,

We accept entropy. I see no reason not to suppose an anti-entropy.

Everything strives for it’s maximum potential because everything is being reduced to its minimum potential.

Isn’t that a rather animistic view?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
MDBeach
Total Posts:  734
Joined  10-03-2007
 
 
 
01 April 2007 11:48
 

[quote author=“Joad”]burt,

We accept entropy. I see no reason not to suppose an anti-entropy.

Everything strives for it’s maximum potential because everything is being reduced to its minimum potential.

There is anti-entropy.  It comes in the form of greed and every other human behaviour characterized by a belief that one’s self is more important than any other human being.  It is manipulation.  It is animalistic.  It is survival of the fittest.  It is the opposite of the enlightenment.  It’s what we all need to strive to eliminate from our world.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Joad
Total Posts:  775
Joined  04-12-2006
 
 
 
01 April 2007 13:34
 

I was just attempting to discuss the force which overcomes inertia.

There was the original burst of energy from the Big Bang. But there is another dynamic at work.

A very simple example is water. Water is relentlessly active. It spreads and seeps. If it encounters a wall, it attempts to erode through. Freeze it, and it creeps. Boil it and floats to a cooler area. It tries to ‘eat’ minerals by dissolving them.

I’m not appealing to animism. You get out of bed in the morning because you are hungry. Water gets out of bed because of gravity. When I mention water seeking it’s maximum potential, I just mean it’s natural process of spreading, absobing and eroding until it cannot anymore.

If there are lemon trees, the rain will make lemonade.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
MDBeach
Total Posts:  734
Joined  10-03-2007
 
 
 
02 April 2007 02:27
 

[quote author=“Joad”]I was just attempting to discuss the force which overcomes inertia.

There was the original burst of energy from the Big Bang. But there is another dynamic at work.

A very simple example is water. Water is relentlessly active. It spreads and seeps. If it encounters a wall, it attempts to erode through. Freeze it, and it creeps. Boil it and floats to a cooler area. It tries to ‘eat’ minerals by dissolving them.

I’m not appealing to animism. You get out of bed in the morning because you are hungry. Water gets out of bed because of gravity. When I mention water seeking it’s maximum potential, I just mean it’s natural process of spreading, absobing and eroding until it cannot anymore.

If there are lemon trees, the rain will make lemonade.

I didn’t mean it as a flame, I was simply pointing out that the same topics we discuss in this forum are also in Einsteins book.  Einstein was a philosopher, most people don’t know that.  I didn’t until I started reading his book.  Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.  I have a problem of saying things that make perfect sense to me but mean different things altogether to anyone not inside my mind.  With the amount of people inside my mind, it is hard enough!

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
08 January 2008 03:04
 

God did it does not show purpose as it is meaningless until one can show that there is substance to God.An therefore the shallow Alister McGrath, Dawkins shallow critic, is wrong in alleging that the redundancy   of God adds meaning . See the new topic the ignostic-Ockham.
It is the fallacy of equivocation to       equate faith and science as Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith is the I just say so of credulity!

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
08 January 2008 03:04
 

God did it does not show purpose as it is meaningless until one can show that there is substance to God.An therefore the shallow Alister McGrath, Dawkins shallow critic, is wrong in alleging that the redundancy   of God adds meaning . See the new topic the ignostic-Ockham.
It is the fallacy of equivocation to       equate faith and science as Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith is the I just say so of credulity!

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
08 January 2008 03:05
 

God did it does not show purpose as it is meaningless until one can show that there is substance to God.An therefore the shallow Alister McGrath, Dawkins shallow critic, is wrong in alleging that the redundancy   of God adds meaning . See the new topic the ignostic-Ockham.
It is the fallacy of equivocation to       equate faith and science as Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith is the I just say so of credulity!