>
>>Bertvan:
>>I'm not sure there is any difference between what you call "naturally
>>occurring order" and what I call "design". You seem to believe it "just
>>happened", but insist that is not "mystical". I have no idea where
>>"natural order" or "design" came from, and regard its origin as extremely
>>mystical -- meaning that I not only don't know where the it came from, but I
>>doubt anyone will ever know. You don't know the origin of "natural order",
>>but do claim to know for certain that no theist concepts were involved. I
>>don't know how "design" originated and therefore can't rule out theism (or
>>lots of other explanations).
Chris:
>Ultimately, *disorder* is logically impossible. In a sense, there is no
>such thing as true disorder. There is only order that is too complex for us
>to understand, or order that we might understand but which is not
>sufficiently significant to us for us to bother to come to understand it.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris: I hadn't realized there were things too trivial or complex for you
to bother understanding.
Chris:
>I challenge anyone to describe a universe in non-abstract terms that would
>not exhibit order, and to show that it would not. I've made this challenge
>before on another list. Only one person took me up on it, and I showed how,
>based on his description, order would necessarily be present in such a
>universe.
Bertvan:
I concur that you have probably handily demolished any one who expressed
skepticism of any of your beliefs, and not being either talented experienced
at creating universes, ordered or disordered, I'll pass your challenge.
Chris:
>You say that you doubt that anyone ever will know where order comes from.
>Saying that you doubt that anyone will know or understand something is one
>of your standard answers to many questions. If you can specify *why*, in
>logically defensible ways, some question will not or cannot be answered,
>such a non-answer might be justified. But, to me, it just seems that you
>lack the intellectual drive to clarify and validate (and correct as needed)
>your concepts, to sort things out well enough to answer such questions, and
>a lack of drive to seek to understand and think in terms of *fundamentals*.
>You seem to live, intellectually, on the philosophical "surface." You seem
>to give up, essentially, at the first sign of difficulty in gaining a deep
>understanding. This is the way I am about issues such as "Fermat's last
>theorem," and details of auto mechanics, but then I'm not on any lists
>saying things like, "I don't understand carburetion, and I doubt than
>anyone ever will."
Bertvan:
I admit, Chris, I can't state why I doubt anyone will ever understand the
origin of order in the universe, but can you state why you know it will be
understood? Is it because you already understand all these questions that
many people characterize as unanswerable?
Chris:
>It's this dilittantish attitude of yours combined with assertive mysterian
>claims and a what appears as a kind of self-induced intellectual fog that
>provokes me to lose patience with you (when I respond to your posts at
>all). You seem to derive some sort of *comfort* from *not* understanding
>things, from swimming around in a miasma of woozily defined concepts and
>questions.
Bertvan:
I was once called an "ignorant creationist pig" on one of these boards, and
your criticism, while more imaginative, will probably produce the same
reaction. I tend to dig in my heels when told what to believe and what not
to believe.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 17:01:08 EDT