Then I will hang a worn out piece of advice on you about that. Go within. Look in the mirror. Have a conversation with yourself. There is your 'designer.'



But you DID ask for proof. However, if you BELIEVE that it cannot be proven or that I cannot prove it, then you are right. You will not be convinced of anything against your personal belief. This I understand.




No, it is proof that we (man or whatever) are designers and we are headed towards a future where the design of living creatures, and the designs of human beings will inevitably happen.



And what is the nature of this so-called energy of life? Is it intelligent or stupid? Is it just electricity? What is it and how does it create life?



And again, Proof is a matter of agreement. That YOU BELIEVE there is no proof means that you have been wasting my time and yours asking for proof that you will not see or accept.

I find this last statement about me being "the same as all others who believe the same as me" very demeaning and even quite rude. There is no one who believes 'the same as me.'

LOL I was TOLD that I am not atheist for those reasons. I find this interesting.

I am not really into labels other than just "me"...lol

I find no offense at the label so it matters not to me one way or the other.

Sounds a lot like "spirit" to me.

"The energy of Life"

"Chi"

"The Force"

"Spirit"

The only difference is that yours is not intelligent. It is stupid I guess.

I speak to myself all the time. But my designing skills are pretty rusty...lol

The life force in us does not create so you misunderstand. It is there because we are alive. It leaves us and becomes part of the universe when the life leaves us.

I did ask for proof I knew was not available, you are right. Sorry.

Did not mean it as demeaning. Just thought if you thought you were not alone it would be better. Sorry again.

All of those listed are not intelligent either, they just exist.

Well first off, understand that is not the entirety of my view. It was only in answer to your specific questions and with the idea of not going into the specifics of the game itself and the interactions between the game and the players and the interactions between the players themselves.

So at this point I have to go into that.

The design of the game is such that the rules themselves can be changed by the players. That is, the players can actually make up or change rules as they play. Sort of like how kids will make up games and add or change rules as they play. So actually, the rules of the game are a product of the interaction of the players. Just as in the kids made-up game, without the players, there would be no game. The players themselves are creating the game as they play it.

So how does that relate to science?

Science has, for the past few centuries, been narrowing it’s focus more and more to the point where it is now focused entirely on the game and completely ignoring the players. And it has reached the point where science’s fundamental position has turned the whole concept upside-down by proposing that the game creates the players.

Now one could say that religion is taking the opposite perspective – that the game is the product of at least one player (God). And depending on how many gods one postulates, there may or may not be multiple players.

Well I just take that one step farther and take the position that every living thing is a player. And to be even more accurate, I flip that around and use it to define the difference between “living” and “non-living”: “life” is what “plays” and “the game” is what “is played”. In terms of cause-and-effect, it says that everything about the game is ultimately the effect of the players. (Thus, my favorite statement “You create your own reality.”)

So as to your question “What is there to gain?”, I would suggest that there is a huge amount to be gained by scientifically investigating the process of how the players interact with the game.

And I think the PEAR/ICRL research (notably the man/machine interface research) is the most significant research to date in that direction.

The biggest problem is that the rules of scientific research itself will have to change from the current “hard core objectivism” to something that allows for investigating subjectivity itself.

And here are a couple of really good papers on that very subject:
“The Science of The Subjective” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/sos.pdf)
“Change The Rules!” (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Change_The_Rules.pdf)

If you say so. Of course you can't prove it.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP!!!

My point exactly. IF there was or is a designer, it is definitely not smart. Why do we have sadness? Pain? ugliness around us? Crack vicims? Heartburn? Bald spots? Moustache on women? Old age? Fear of death?

I am sure that a more mature, wiser, more intelligent designer would have been able to make a world that be very different from the one we live in.

In fact: If someone again says something about a smart designer, I'll declare that declarer stupid. Any designer who made or designed this world, was, at best, very stupid, cruel, immature, and had bad breath, his or her nose whistled during conversations, and had foot odor.

subatomic particles,theres your proof

Wrong? False?

Abracadabra you are so missing the point being made here. If you are a scientist as you claim to be, you should know the importance of falsifiability. If the is a hypothesis which cannot be falsified through observation it is useless and discarded. Such a hypothesis is not worth the paper it is written on.

I have shown you before, and could show you again exactly how your evidence if taken at face value would support the conclusion that a pink and black elephantic smooge exists just as validly as it supports a designer.

Because that can and has been done, it clearly shows that the evidence does not support the idea of a designer any more or less than a known fictitious object. The evidence, therefore, is inconclusive and insufficient.

That is no evidence, in my mind. Your results may vary.

our universe is older than what scientist believe it is. its infinite and thats that. quasars are the developement of galaxies not destroyers by the way

Wow you have evidently missed the entire conversation. You are talking about the dogma of religion and some alleged supreme deity who supposedly designed the world-- and because you don't like it you are whining about this alleged "creator."

Take some responsibility for your own mess. You are the designer.

I know that went right over your head too.

Nope I can't.

You can't prove that they do....lol

I met a Draconian the other day, and when she spoke I heard her say,

"I believe like Jeanniebean, for of my life, I am the queen"

I told her that it can't be true, for no one shares JB's view

She hissed at me, and stuck her tongue, in my ear, and damn it stung!

The pain was great, I had to scream, that woke me up from my horrid dream

So never claim to know the truth, in a dream where dragons are so uncouth.

Interesting. I also doubt that scientists know how old the universe is.

"Do your homework this instant, if you don't want to get slapped into next Tuesday! Georgina, darling, you don't want to grow up to be stupid like us, your parents, do you now. So do your goddamned stupid homework."

"Ah... yes. So if I square this side, and square the other side, then if you take the square root of their grandmother's hair coloring kit, you'll get the Instant bonus. Wait... that doesn't sound right. I gotta figure out this Pytagorean theorem before I could make diamond christals. Hey, I'll just ask Jerry Springer tomorrow in class."

"Connect the dots to see who is opening the door to let in the Big Bad Wolf into Gramma's house? Man, if I could connect dots, I'd be a detective already or a train condottor. Or meybe even a dotter. I am Dottor Footmuesli."

This is the type of things I can see the designer of our universe as saying during the design process.

Oh my!

I can't believe that you said such nasty things about our creator.

Boy are you going to get a spanking when you die!

Bullsh*t! Proof is sound, relevant, and sufficient, whether you agree with it or not.

Prove it.