|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On Jul 20, 9:37 am, Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:29:10 GMT, Frederick Williams "Frederick wrote: hand. Please answer me this question...where did the 'rules' and or 'laws of nature' come from? Did they come from anywhere? If they did, I don't know. They are descriptive, not proscriptive. Why do these idiots imagine they had to come from anywhere? How can you imagine they didn't? Without these laws, life could not exist as we know it? We could presume they existed before the 'big bang' but even then, with the universe compressed to an infinitely small, dense particle...it does not add up! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On 19 Jul., 14:01, Frederick Williams "Frederick
wrote: Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? Your question indicates, perhaps, a confusion: the kind of rules which are laws of nature are not at all related to the kind that are laws of man. Are you convinced that laws of nature are coming from nothing or at random? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as "What caused the law of cause and effect?" In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the "effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of cause and effect? m I don't agree. I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause. Despite the cause, that the Comm. dept. asked for a new product. But sometimes we offered the Comm.Dept. a new product also, without a request from them. So in such cases the cause is something that has nothing to do with the laws of nature/effect. In that environment I worked, cause and effect e.g. is not necessary or applicable. And I only want to generalize this. But you are free not to accept this argumentation. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote: On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as "What caused the law of cause and effect?" In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the "effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of cause and effect? m I don't agree. You don't agree with what? I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause. Why did you start a new project, then? m |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On 21 Jul., 04:35, "Mark N." wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote: On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote: On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as "What caused the law of cause and effect?" In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the "effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of cause and effect? m I don't agree. You don't agree with what? cause and effect holds good only for macroscopic matters. in my view. Other things like " I will " have their cause may be in quantum effects. See also double gap experiment with single particles. But I see: here the probability plays an important role, leading you to your opinion. Also Einstein said: God does not dice. But he has changed his mind. I think he dices for a very good reason -for me alone, may be-. I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause. Why did you start a new project, then? May be Curiosity? But see above m |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
On Jul 21, 5:50 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 21 Jul., 04:35, "Mark N." wrote: On Jul 20, 5:25 pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote: On 20 Jul., 14:15, "Mark N." wrote: On Jul 19, 4:36 am, Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? To understand the answer to this question, you should phrase it as "What caused the law of cause and effect?" In order to be a genuine cause, the cause must precede the effect. For the law of cause and effect to have a cause, that cause must have existed before there was a law of cause and effect. But if there is no law of cause and effect, then the "cause" is not really related to the "effect" in any causal sense. Which means that the "cause" of the law of cause and effect didn't really cause it. So what caused the law of cause and effect? m I don't agree. You don't agree with what? cause and effect holds good only for macroscopic matters. in my view. Is the law of cause and effect macroscopic or microscopic, then? If it's macroscopic, then what caused it? If it's microscopic, then how can you say it only holds for macroscopic matters? Other things like " I will " have their cause may be in quantum effects. That's an interesting view, but it has a couple of implications: 1) that "will" exists only on the subatomic scale, and 2) that "will" is random and irrational. See also double gap experiment with single particles. Yeah, that's some pretty cool stuff. But I see: here the probability plays an important role, leading you to your opinion. Also Einstein said: God does not dice. But he has changed his mind. I think he dices for a very good reason -for me alone, may be-. Sorry, I'm not following what you're saying. I was an el. design engineer, now retired. I f we started a new project, we analyzed what to do without a cause. Why did you start a new project, then? May be Curiosity? But see above Then curiosity caused you to start the project. Perhaps you are not aware of the factors that caused you to start a new project, but that does not mean that causes do not exist. The only way cause does not exist is if your behavior is completely random, meaningless, and irrational. m |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Proof Of Evolution.
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 19 Jul., 14:01, Frederick Williams "Frederick wrote: Rudolf Drabek wrote: who has made the rules? Your question indicates, perhaps, a confusion: the kind of rules which are laws of nature are not at all related to the kind that are laws of man. Are you convinced that laws of nature are coming from nothing or at random? No. I am not qualified to say where they came from. Indeed, I don't even understand the question "Where did the laws of nature come from?" -- Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address. "He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's hand. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proof Of Evolution. | sdr | Astronomy Misc | 8 | July 19th 07 10:44 AM |
Proof of Astrology | William Blake Jr. | Astronomy Misc | 14 | December 27th 06 09:16 PM |
EVOLUTION BOOK BURNING EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS -- Unmitigated Crap Turns to Ashes -- Evolution Goes Belly Up | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 6 | May 13th 06 02:26 AM |
EXKLUSIV IN BERLIN -- Little Woman (14 cm or 5.5 in.) - Petrified Human Remains - Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - Evolution Nonsense | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 8th 05 11:27 AM |