Main > Main Forum
Interesting Craigslist find.
ChadTower:
Justin's concept, of course, assumes that complex life began on Earth. We could easily be Populated Planet version 1908657th.
Personally, I figure it was all just a random sequence of events. With enough time, and enough events, eventually something is going to click together in a meaningful way. Probability demands it.
MaximRecoil:
--- Quote from: Justin Z on March 14, 2008, 03:42:01 pm ---
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on March 14, 2008, 03:37:05 pm ---I don't need to "rethink" the position. It has already been stated far more eloquently than I could ever do it; hundreds of years ago. You don't need to explain what "caused" the "first mover" BTW; because if anything "caused" the first mover than the "first mover" would not be the "first mover", by definition; now would it?
--- End quote ---
Yup. This is why only "first" gets put in quotes when I refer to a "first" mover. All you're doing by positing a "first" mover is shifting the goalposts back. You still need one more kick to get through, but just as you approach the ball, by the very nature of your argument you've backed them up another 50 yards.
By definition, a first mover is more complex than whatever it is he moved. So if you're going to use such a device to explain our existence, you've created yourself quite a problem: You now have to explain where in the world something even MORE complex came from in the first place. As I mentioned before, you have an infinite regress of "first" movers on your hands.
--- End quote ---
You don't have to explain where the "first mover" came from, you only need show logically that there must have been one. It is not even reasonable to suggest that the "first mover" need be explained, due to the fact that anything predating the universe would not necessarily be subject to the same rules as are present in the observable universe. It would be like ants in an ant farm assuming that humans can only walk so far before they hit a glass barrier.
whammoed:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on March 14, 2008, 03:44:23 pm ---
Justin's concept, of course, assumes that complex life began on Earth. We could easily be Populated Planet version 1908657th.
Personally, I figure it was all just a random sequence of events. With enough time, and enough events, eventually something is going to click together in a meaningful way. Probability demands it.
--- End quote ---
You would enjoy reading "The Blind Watchmaker". Check it out if you haven't already.
RayB:
PS: Something to think about, but why would a "conciousness" (ie:ghost) be subject to physical world laws like "scale" ? Why aren't appearances of so-called ghosts ever small and tiny, or big like a house? If a ghost can knock a couple glasses around, why aren't they also assuming large size and knocking boats or cars around?
People keep arguing that "there's got to be more than just the physical world we perceive" to explain the possibility of ghosts, yet for some reason then, these spirit things are then bound to some physical world laws and then not others. Let's see, they can bend light to make use see them, but they can't assume a different SIZE. Sorry, but that kills the concept right there in my point of view.
ChadTower:
--- Quote from: whammoed on March 14, 2008, 03:49:14 pm ---You would enjoy reading "The Blind Watchmaker". Check it out if you haven't already.
--- End quote ---
Found a reference to the book... nothing on video other than a documentary from the 80s. I'll keep an eye out for the book, looks interesting. Thanks!