If computers, cars, etc. have designers why not the universe?

[DaveSimmons]

But as a first step, God created himself. How he managed that without existing already is a mystery that you primitive screwheads will never understand.

Your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures.

 

[zCypher]

If the universe was designed, it was designed to look exactly like it would if it wasn't designed. So this is a pointless discussion without more information. Oh, but I suppose you have that information and it was beamed into your head by god.

So if the universe needs a creator/designer, does not god need one too?

Maybe it's just a never-ending chain of gods, human centipede style, all attached anus-to-mouth, digesting and chewing cuttlefish and asparagus.

lol. I love you ATOT!

 

[Braznor]

Axioms are still statements in a language. The universe is not a language.

Think of this way. The completeness theorem provides a way of verifying the axioms in terms of mathematical and physical syntax in terms of model theory. There are many physical models eg: Standard model, Relativity, String theory etc. So while the universe is not a language, it can however be described using axioms in terms of the models mentioned above.

Axioms can be postulated and rejected arbitrarily. This is not true of universe.

Axioms can be postulated and rejected arbitrarily, but there is a limit to this assumption and deduction. This limit is set by the observation model itself, the universe. The universe forces scientists to confirm to a set of standard axioms as accepted under the above set of theories. The problem so far is that certain axioms in certain models are not consistent with the other models. We can understand this in terms of discrepancies between our models and the physical world. So while Axioms can be postulated and rejected arbitrarily only upto the extent of the model system chosen. Our current theories in physics require a standard sets of axioms expressed by their own syntax i.e maths, physics etc.

I repeat: axioms are statements in a language. The universe is not an axiom, nor a set of axioms.

The critical aspect you need to comprehend is that in first degree logic, axioms assumed need not be proven by itself. Since first degree logic refers to the standard syntax of mathematics and physics, all our attempts are in the direction of reducing the universe into self evident blocks of axioms into one standard model of this universe.

Consider this when a kid or a nobel prize winner says 2 + 2 = 4, he does not need to prove the rules of mathematics or the number 2 itself or its additive number 2. He begins on a base of syntax of an approximate physical model and then uses that syntax to construct another axiom. This universe is a set of axioms confirming to a physical model, we just need to find the right one yet.

Non-sequitur. Nothing is ever "proved of the universe." The universe simply is.

When you say 'the universe simply is', it is assumption resting on a self evident fact (an axiom) i.e the validity of the existence of the universe. When you 2 + 2 = 4, you are assuming that everything (axioms) leading to maths model is undeniable by itself and you are using the language of this maths model to derive a further truth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Think of this way. The completeness theorem provides a way of verifying the axioms in terms of mathematical and physical syntax in terms of model theory. There are many physical models eg: Standard model, Relativity, String theory etc. So while the universe is not a language, it can however be described using axioms in terms of the models mentioned above.

I do not accept this postulate.

Axioms can be postulated and rejected arbitrarily, but there is a limit to this assumption and deduction. This limit is set by the observation model itself, the universe. The universe forces scientists to confirm to a set of standard axioms as accepted under the above set of theories.

It does no such thing.

The problem so far is that certain axioms in certain models are not consistent with the other models. We can understand this in terms of discrepancies between our models and the physical world. So while Axioms can be postulated and rejected arbitrarily only upto the extent of the model system chosen. Our current theories in physics require a standard sets of axioms expressed by their own syntax i.e maths, physics etc.

But that has nothing to do with the universe.

The critical aspect you need to comprehend is that in first degree logic, axioms assumed need not be proven by itself. Since first degree logic refers to the standard syntax of mathematics and physics, all our attempts are in the direction of reducing the universe into self evident blocks of axioms into one standard model of this universe.

You have still failed to connect a theorem about arithmetic to any facts about the world.

Consider this when a kid or a nobel prize winner says 2 + 2 = 4, he does not need to prove the rules of mathematics or the number 2 itself or its additive number 2. He begins on a base of syntax of an approximate physical model and then uses that syntax to construct another axiom. This universe is a set of axioms confirming to a physical model, we just need to find the right one yet.

The universe is NOT a set of axioms. I repeat myself thirdly: Axioms are statements in a language. The universe is not a language.

When you say 'the universe simply is', it is assumption resting on a self evident fact (an axiom) i.e the validity of the existence of the universe.

False. My observation of the existence of the universe is direct.

When you 2 + 2 = 4, you are assuming that everything (axioms) leading to maths model is undeniable by itself and you are using the language of this maths model to derive a further truth.

You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that maths have anything to do with external reality.

 

[Braznor]

I do not accept this postulate.





It does no such thing.


But that has nothing to do with the universe.



You have still failed to connect a theorem about arithmetic to any facts about the world.


The universe is NOT a set of axioms. I repeat myself thirdly: Axioms are statements in a language. The universe is not a language.



False. My observation of the existence of the universe is direct.


You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that maths have anything to do with external reality.

Please give more points to your counterview. If you cannot accept the postulate, tell me why. I made reasonable propositions in my rationale above. I told you the completeness theorem verifies in the context of this universe the physical truth of the syntax in any logical language, maths, physical units and systems built with them.

Here the axiom being evaluated is the model of the physical universe itself. It is checked for consistency in terms of itself. The first incompleteness theorem states that if a system needs to have a consistent model, then it must contain within it statements of syntax which can't be proved from WITHIN the system.

The second incompleteness theorem states that if a system is built with a syntax with everything proven true within them, then the consistency of the system will remaining in terms incomplete.

So all of science is just using these two theorems to find the truth of everything.

The first Incompleteness theorem is used to check for the consistency of the model and it will always turn out that the model has axioms which cannot be proven true by themselves from WITHIN the system.

The second Incompleteness theorem says that even if a non trivial system is constructed with all statements within as TRUE, it shall end by being inconsistent. i.e. it will have statements which cannot be true at once.


The Completeness theorem is used to check the consistency of the syntax with the model.

The Completeness theorem along with Incompleteness theorem combines to help search for most consistent system physical models by letting us know which truths cannot be proved by themselves. These truths are the aspects of the 'outside' as I mentioned above. Our estimation of the physical word is in form of syntax i.e mathematics, symbols, ratios, physical mass-energy units is the application and refinement of syntax within the model. So for us, observers 'within' the universe will always remain dependent on a truth 'outside' the universe. The universe is thus always an axiom for all fundamentally self-consistent theories. If they try invent a theory that can explain the aspects of this 'outside' within their own universe, they will always get an inconsistent theory. So for the observers within the universe, the universe always has to be considered an axiom, an self evident fact which cannot be proven by themselves inside the system.

Please offer a counterpoint rather than unreasoned judgement. I'm not here to be judged for my scientific thinking.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Please give more points to your counterview. If you cannot accept the postulate, tell me why. I made reasonable propositions in my rationale above. I told you the completeness theorem verifies in the context of this universe the physical truth of the syntax in any logical language, maths, physical units and systems built with them.

Here the axiom being evaluated is the model of the physical universe itself. It is checked for consistency in terms of itself. The first incompleteness theorem states that if a system needs to have a consistent model, then it must contain within it statements of syntax which can't be proved from WITHIN the system.

The second incompleteness theorem states that if a system is built with a syntax with everything proven true within them, then the consistency of the system will remaining in terms incomplete.

So all of science is just using these two theorems to find the truth of everything.

The first Incompleteness theorem is used to check for the consistency of the model and it will always turn out that the model has axioms which cannot be proven true by themselves from WITHIN the system.

The second Incompleteness theorem says that even if a non trivial system is constructed with all statements within as TRUE, it shall end by being inconsistent. i.e. it will have statements which cannot be true at once.


The Completeness theorem is used to check the consistency of the syntax with the model.

The Completeness theorem along with Incompleteness theorem combines to help search for most consistent system physical models by letting us know which truths cannot be proved by themselves. These truths are the aspects of the 'outside' as I mentioned above. Our estimation of the physical word is in form of syntax i.e mathematics, symbols, ratios, physical mass-energy units is the application and refinement of syntax within the model. So for us, observers 'within' the universe will always remain dependent on a truth 'outside' the universe. The universe is thus always an axiom for all fundamentally self-consistent theories. If they try invent a theory that can explain the aspects of this 'outside' within their own universe, they will always get an inconsistent theory. So for the observers within the universe, the universe always has to be considered an axiom, an self evident fact which cannot be proven by themselves inside the system.

Please offer a counterpoint rather than unreasoned judgement. I'm not here to be judged for my scientific thinking.

You know...wordgames are boring.
It's like the OP..a lot of fluff...about nothing...

 

[Braznor]

You know...wordgames are boring.
It's like the OP..a lot of fluff...about nothing...

The universe does not revolve around you. Get over it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The universe does not revolve around you. Get over it.

The universe dosn't fit in your "box"...get over it :whiste:

 

[Braznor]

The universe dosn't fit in your "box"...get over it :whiste:

I have been saying the universe does not fit into anyone's box all this while. :whiste:

 

[JTsyo]

...


If a friend of yours said that the latest version of the android software had no designer/programmer but evolved by itself into existence there would obviously be some type of investigation into that claim. And since software is without a doubt many times less complex than biological life or the framework of the known universe, is it really such an idiotic thought to think that perhaps it could be an intelligent designer for the world and the universe that we see around us?

It is possible to get complex software from simple instructions. Genetic algorithm

 

[sourceninja]

I've always used the deck of cards. The chance of drawing 2 aces out of a deck of cards randomly is 1 in 221 tries. This is fairly bad odds for betting, yet it will happen in a short span of time given enough draws. (Another thing people don't get is that each time you draw you still get the 1 in 221 odds assuming it's a full deck each attempt).

Even with the near impossible odds of life on this planet happening, we have to consider the scope of the problem. We have uncountable planets, star systems, etc and timelines that are almost incomprehensible. Not only do I think it's possible, I'd dare say it's impossible for it to not have happend.

 

[momeNt]

Computers and cars do not have designers. Humans and their thought processes are nothing but chemical reactions in response to external stimuli. So to say that a human is responsible for anything, is kind of hiding the ball.

There may be an argument for the existence of a designer, but this isn't one.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I've always used the deck of cards. The chance of drawing 2 aces out of a deck of cards randomly is 1 in 221 tries. This is fairly bad odds for betting, yet it will happen in a short span of time given enough draws. (Another thing people don't get is that each time you draw you still get the 1 in 221 odds assuming it's a full deck each attempt).

Even with the near impossible odds of life on this planet happening, we have to consider the scope of the problem. We have uncountable planets, star systems, etc and timelines that are almost incomprehensible. Not only do I think it's possible, I'd dare say it's impossible for it to not have happend.

You fail math.
Take a deck of cards.
Now shuffle them.
And lay them out...1 card at the time.
After you are done.
Calclutate the odds of you getting that specific order of cards.

Guess what...no matter the little chance...you just did it.
(Hint: Your math sucks)

No wonder science is hard for people when simple math K.O.'s them...

 

[BurnItDwn]

If by "design" you mean "naturally happened" and by "creator" you mean "laws of science", then yes. That makes perfect sense and the fact that we exist at all is very strong evidence to support this.

Otherwise, I find it highly improbable.

Anybody who wants to claim a creator, really should prove that it's possible for a being to exist at a level high enough to design and create a universe and then hide all evidence of creating the universe, and then make it look like the universe evolved on it's own. To me, this sounds completely absurd and insane.

 

[momeNt]

What's the popular view now on creation? That there was nothing, and from nothing matter and anti-matter spontaneously were created. From that the matter formed an enormously dense little ball of matter and collapsed on itself (big bang)? The rest is history? Is this the popular view on pre-history?

 

[JM Aggie08]

Queue the AT atheist circlejerk! Bring out the lotion boys, I've got the biscuit!

 

[sourceninja]

You fail math.
Take a deck of cards.
Now shuffle them.
And lay them out...1 card at the time.
After you are done.
Calclutate the odds of you getting that specific order of cards.

Guess what...no matter the little chance...you just did it.
(Hint: Your math sucks)

No wonder science is hard for people when simple math K.O.'s them...

Not understanding your point. My point is no matter how little the odds, given enough chances it can still happen.

 

[pelov]

What's the popular view now on creation? That there was nothing, and from nothing matter and anti-matter spontaneously were created. From that the matter formed an enormously dense little ball of matter and collapsed on itself (big bang)? The rest is history? Is this the popular view on pre-history?

cudderrfish or vanirra paste?

 

[momeNt]

cudderrfish or vanirra paste?

 

[Juddog]

What's the popular view now on creation? That there was nothing, and from nothing matter and anti-matter spontaneously were created. From that the matter formed an enormously dense little ball of matter and collapsed on itself (big bang)? The rest is history? Is this the popular view on pre-history?

What happened was that during the time of the previous Universe's big collapse, Galen was the last of his species. As he tried to escape the big crunch, the embodiment of the Universe spoke to him and told him he would be a vassal for the next universe to follow.

As the universe collapsed, Galen remained safe inside of the cosmic egg. Upon the birth of the Universe, the big bang, Galen's egg matured and gave birth to Galactus, devourer of worlds.

 

[momeNt]

What happened was that during the time of the previous Universe's big collapse, Galen was the last of his species. As he tried to escape the big crunch, the embodiment of the Universe spoke to him and told him he would be a vassal for the next universe to follow.

As the universe collapsed, Galen remained safe inside of the cosmic egg. Upon the birth of the Universe, the big bang, Galen's egg matured and gave birth to Galactus, devourer of worlds.

Science people only please. Stop trying to make me stupider.

 

[Juddog]

Science people only please. Stop trying to make me stupider.

Think of it like a glass of champagne; each bubble being a separate universe. Occasionally from the bottom of the glass a new bubble will arise, that bubble forming is the big bang of that universe.

 

[pelov]

Science people only please. Stop trying to make me stupider.

There is no consensus. There are a few different theories, some of which share things in common, but none really stands out among the rest nor are any currently in any phase where they are verifiable.

Short answer: we don't know.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Please give more points to your counterview. If you cannot accept the postulate, tell me why.

I don't need a reason. That is the flaw in your argument. What has been offered without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence.

I made reasonable propositions in my rationale above. I told you the completeness theorem verifies in the context of this universe the physical truth of the syntax in any logical language, maths, physical units and systems built with them.

These are not the universe, and we are discussing the universe.

Here the axiom being evaluated is the model of the physical universe itself. It is checked for consistency in terms of itself. The first incompleteness theorem states that if a system needs to have a consistent model, then it must contain within it statements of syntax which can't be proved from WITHIN the system.

The second incompleteness theorem states that if a system is built with a syntax with everything proven true within them, then the consistency of the system will remaining in terms incomplete.

So all of science is just using these two theorems to find the truth of everything.

The first Incompleteness theorem is used to check for the consistency of the model and it will always turn out that the model has axioms which cannot be proven true by themselves from WITHIN the system.

The second Incompleteness theorem says that even if a non trivial system is constructed with all statements within as TRUE, it shall end by being inconsistent. i.e. it will have statements which cannot be true at once.


The Completeness theorem is used to check the consistency of the syntax with the model.

The Completeness theorem along with Incompleteness theorem combines to help search for most consistent system physical models by letting us know which truths cannot be proved by themselves. These truths are the aspects of the 'outside' as I mentioned above. Our estimation of the physical word is in form of syntax i.e mathematics, symbols, ratios, physical mass-energy units is the application and refinement of syntax within the model. So for us, observers 'within' the universe will always remain dependent on a truth 'outside' the universe. The universe is thus always an axiom for all fundamentally self-consistent theories. If they try invent a theory that can explain the aspects of this 'outside' within their own universe, they will always get an inconsistent theory. So for the observers within the universe, the universe always has to be considered an axiom, an self evident fact which cannot be proven by themselves inside the system.

Blah blah blah. I repeat myself again, thusly and like so...

Axioms are statements in a language. The universe is not a language.

Please offer a counterpoint rather than unreasoned judgement. I'm not here to be judged for my scientific thinking.

I have offered the only necessary counterpoint, and I have now repeated it four times. You can continue typing these huge word salads all day -- none of them have addressed the simple fact that your arguments apply to math, not the universe.

 

[Gibsons]

Think of it like a glass of champagne; each bubble being a separate universe. Occasionally from the bottom of the glass a new bubble will arise, that bubble forming is the big bang of that universe.

What's the champagne?