You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Hans:
>We humans can design computers. While many humans
>can understand the most sophisticated computer no
>computer can understand any human. This is because the
>human is on a higher plane of being than the computer.
>Similar is the relationship between God and human. No
>one supporting the Designer argument need define the >Designer since the Designer would exist in a manner >undefinable by any human; this indefinability would extend to
>explanations for the coming into being of the Designer.
That's one possibility.
JB
>We humans can design computers. While many humans
>can understand the most sophisticated computer no
>computer can understand any human. This is because the
>human is on a higher plane of being than the computer.
>Similar is the relationship between God and human. No
>one supporting the Designer argument need define the >Designer since the Designer would exist in a manner >undefinable by any human; this indefinability would extend to
>explanations for the coming into being of the Designer.
That's one possibility.
JB
"I suspect Fairies design.."
Naturally...
Naturally...
Quote from stu:
It sounds as if you are the one being stumped.. Design is everywhere. On the other hand Intelligent Design causes very serious Designer problems which you constantly ignore.
That's a pretty good thing to come up with. Better than the ID no proof and no evidence approach.
I suspect Fairies design, I have no proof or evidence, just like ID. Do you think Fairies worth investigating yet.
Your âbiotic realityâ is called science and biology. It will confirm your suspicions of design, but not intelligent design, because there is no sign of intelligent design whatsoever. Just as there is no sign of Fairies. even though they are suspected
I suggest you don't want to understand...period
Poppycock from the fairy lover himself, stu.
The universe exhibits programming everywhere, and programming itself is the product of a programmer.
Even if there is programmed randomness, or programmed chaos, these manifestations are still a function of a program, and until you can demonstrate a program appearing from nothing, fashioning itself from nothing at all, the most reasonable inference is that programming follow the works of a programmer.
Please show me a computer program that is not linked directly or indirectly to a programmer. Even if a computer designs a program, the computer's "life" is owed to a designer and a programmer.
An standard axiom is that nothing can appear unless there is a preexisting condition for it to appear, i.e. the potential to appear always precedes the actual appearance of anything.
The continual proposed belief that our universe came from no programming goes against every shred of human experience and common sense, especially when there is no factual evidence to support such claims.
Those who speak of quantum mechanical behavior of sub atomic particles, of the uncertainty involved in the measurements of such activity are speaking of a consistency of this type of supposed random quantum mechanical behavior. Darwin spoke of consistent processes of change following a pattern of an inheritance survival instinct of all human life.
These consistencies are programmed into the very nature of biological organisms.
No Darwinist or proponent of evolution is suggesting that this process of evolution of species or evolution of the universe was a temporary phenomena, or that at some point in the future biological organisms will cease to evolve and change, cease to attempt to adapt to the environment, or cease to have a primary internal drive to survive.
This reliance on a constant process of change, as if driven by a force as constancy (though unpredictable in its time intervals or degrees of change) again speaks to an underlying and consistency of nature, a programming of nature.
Which again leads us back to the initial situation of where the programming originated and why it necessarily follows the programming, and as programming has never been seen to spring from nothing...well any reasonable person will infer some source of programming that is not a condition of nothingness, but at a bare minimum a state of the potential for programming.
It takes a hell of a lot of work and active denial to infer the universe and all the overwhelming programming we observe and measure, as well as all the consistency of behavior that we see due to the constants seen in the laws of nature and consistent forces and natural tendencies that bring themselves to bear on all that is within the universe...is nothing but the consequence of accident in which all of the intricate programming of nature is but some byproduct of nothing but an accidental causeless unplanned undirected non-programmed event.
"that the Designer then too will require a Designer to Design Itself."
I really don't understand why you continually promote this false statement.
Since scientists believe the universe had a beginning, then it follow that the universe will have an end...show us something that was born that does not dies, something created that does not at some point die.
Prior to the beginning of the universe, it is logically possible that an eternal designer was, is, and has always been there.
The concept of an eternal designer completely blows your idea that a designer needs a designer out of the pond, though I am not at all surprised that the concept of an eternal designer escapes you.
Abstract thinking has never been a talent of yours...
The universe exhibits programming everywhere, and programming itself is the product of a programmer.
Even if there is programmed randomness, or programmed chaos, these manifestations are still a function of a program, and until you can demonstrate a program appearing from nothing, fashioning itself from nothing at all, the most reasonable inference is that programming follow the works of a programmer.
Please show me a computer program that is not linked directly or indirectly to a programmer. Even if a computer designs a program, the computer's "life" is owed to a designer and a programmer.
An standard axiom is that nothing can appear unless there is a preexisting condition for it to appear, i.e. the potential to appear always precedes the actual appearance of anything.
The continual proposed belief that our universe came from no programming goes against every shred of human experience and common sense, especially when there is no factual evidence to support such claims.
Those who speak of quantum mechanical behavior of sub atomic particles, of the uncertainty involved in the measurements of such activity are speaking of a consistency of this type of supposed random quantum mechanical behavior. Darwin spoke of consistent processes of change following a pattern of an inheritance survival instinct of all human life.
These consistencies are programmed into the very nature of biological organisms.
No Darwinist or proponent of evolution is suggesting that this process of evolution of species or evolution of the universe was a temporary phenomena, or that at some point in the future biological organisms will cease to evolve and change, cease to attempt to adapt to the environment, or cease to have a primary internal drive to survive.
This reliance on a constant process of change, as if driven by a force as constancy (though unpredictable in its time intervals or degrees of change) again speaks to an underlying and consistency of nature, a programming of nature.
Which again leads us back to the initial situation of where the programming originated and why it necessarily follows the programming, and as programming has never been seen to spring from nothing...well any reasonable person will infer some source of programming that is not a condition of nothingness, but at a bare minimum a state of the potential for programming.
It takes a hell of a lot of work and active denial to infer the universe and all the overwhelming programming we observe and measure, as well as all the consistency of behavior that we see due to the constants seen in the laws of nature and consistent forces and natural tendencies that bring themselves to bear on all that is within the universe...is nothing but the consequence of accident in which all of the intricate programming of nature is but some byproduct of nothing but an accidental causeless unplanned undirected non-programmed event.
"that the Designer then too will require a Designer to Design Itself."
I really don't understand why you continually promote this false statement.
Since scientists believe the universe had a beginning, then it follow that the universe will have an end...show us something that was born that does not dies, something created that does not at some point die.
Prior to the beginning of the universe, it is logically possible that an eternal designer was, is, and has always been there.
The concept of an eternal designer completely blows your idea that a designer needs a designer out of the pond, though I am not at all surprised that the concept of an eternal designer escapes you.
Abstract thinking has never been a talent of yours...
Quote from stu:
Even though the ID 'er lives with design , a designer, and designers every day , as we all do ,. along with mountains of scientific evidence in support of design, the designer and the designers, the ID'er will deny them all. Not just for one "entire day", but continuously . They must deny it, they have to , for their ID argument can only remain with them if It is unprovable. A world full of testable verifiable factual substantive and substantial evidence of design designer designers, widely understood, but the ID'er will chalk it all up to a delusion, a belief , only faith. The reason ⦠that only an unknown which can never be proven to others, will allow the real designer any status .
I understand that when a designer of the universe appears before you, even for a lifetime, , you would rather chalk it up to some flaw or mistake as you do not want anything to match a preferred personal delusion of one.
You couldn't substantiate in any practical way or prove your speculations about an intelligent designer as legitimate to any one else. You couldn't provide a way for anyone to test it. Even though it is your own direct personal experience, if you could not prove it to others, you would rather value their collective experience with your own. to make similar speculations in order to draw comfort, but always with no confirmation of actuality to your own personal viewpoint.
It makes no difference to the ID'er whether or not there are any actual tests for randomness or any thing else if it clashes with the idea of ID, This approach is of course is the underlying god of ID, which must at all costs remain unknown . Any process, scientific or not, logical or not, is deemed mindless unimportant and inappropriate...all on the basis that ID stays grounded in ignorance . Lacking any way to include a logical or factual or actual demonstration of design at work, the ID'er will insist design could so easily be much too subtle for the human mind or the present tools we have of measurement. Even when it is there, the design, designer and designers, right in view. Right there under their nose, the ID'er will refute the existence of it..
And then there is the absurd contradiction where the ID'er can know about what they insist must remain unknown and unknowable. With statements like " Why things happen is the unknown, and unknowable scientifically and logically." There the god of ID sits. In any gap or space that can be found or made for It so long as its the unknown.
I would think open minded people would understand the essential problem with asserting undirected random accidental processes cannot amount to anything. Only arguing that the last half century in the area of computers and computer programming, has demonstrated to them that in theory a universe could easily have been programmed with algorithms at work that are far beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend. The ID'er merely suggests the computer needs a human computer builder , which in turn needs an Intelligent Design(er) - goes the analogy. Then ignoring the ramifications of that analogy, the ID'er doesn't trouble with the bleedin' obvious, that the Designer then too will require a Designer to Design Itself.
Then there is always the sham argument in the ID tool chest. Trying to pick holes in science with ill-informed assertion, rather than anything to do with the terminal failure on their own part, the ID'er has this persistent urge to argue by any controversy he can drum up in that way.
The genuinely primitive notion running rampant in the ID community is that there is programming...so there could be programming, which is held onto with faith as fervently as any evangelical...simply because from that they hold a blind belief there is a programmer, but have no bloody clue as to how to ever show if there actually is a programmer or not. They have no test for a programmer but just a cop out to limited thought and imaginations. Lacking all the facts the ID'ers lead themselves to what they call a logical conclusion, it yields a conditional relative so called truth, and we have seen consistently such hard and fast truths crumble in the advancement of refinement of technology and the ability to penetrate deeper and deeper into the physical world. Already with a conscious link to the physical phenomena, the ID'er will deny any ability is present to ever use it in a way which gives positive or firm indications proofs and information suggesting or confirming intelligent design is not observed to be present, nor is it required or essential in the world ,or in the universe , as they both appear. Even when knowledge is gained via that consciousness, is testable measurable and confirmable, the ID'r must always deny it and retain his god in any gap which he declares unknown.
There is a mountain of evidence in support of what has been observed, but the ID'er will always make misleading generalizations in order to infer credence by default to his own baseless argument. With "There are gaping holes in the theory of evolution when it comes to direct evidence, and any person of a truly scientific mind would have only one logical and rational conclusion:"
Gaping holes in scientific theory are claimed therefore by default, insufficient evidence for evolution , (even though evolution is provable a fact), ....therefore Designer God Diddit!
An ID'er will ungratefully acknowledge and receive all and any benefit science provides him, nonchalantly waving through life saving health advancements ,via understandings of the world and universe which only science provides, whilst being the first to dismiss with the highest degree of hubris, anything that will ever even suggest his precious delusion be questioned in any way. Even when the designer is there, right in front of him all around, its all there ready to be readily denied at any cost.
Quote from Turok:
Hans:
>We humans can design computers. While many humans
>can understand the most sophisticated computer no
>computer can understand any human. This is because the
>human is on a higher plane of being than the computer.
>Similar is the relationship between God and human. No
>one supporting the Designer argument need define the >Designer since the Designer would exist in a manner >undefinable by any human; this indefinability would extend to
>explanations for the coming into being of the Designer.
That's one possibility.
JB
I'm just suggesting here that the ID proponent has a legitimate out from having to explain the nature of the Designer. The debate needn't be held up by this particular hurdle because it's an easy one to step around without going off the track.
You forgot the really important phrase: "In my opinion."Quote from Hansel H:
The Design supporter presents the apparent design in the world as prima-facie evidence for a Designer. The onus is on the anti-Design side to provide controverting proof.
The proof is simple. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it proves that certain microscopic events in this universe are objectively random.
If something is objectively random, then it cannot be under the control of a designer. Therefore, there is no designer -- at least not scientifically speaking.
You can argue philosophically, that uncertainty is wrong, and that there are hdden variables or other interpretations that falsify randomness.
But, that's all just philosophy until you create an experiment which can predict both the position and speed of an elementary particle with absolute certainty. Many have tried -- all have failed.
That's what the ID advocate should be spending its money on. But, instead, everything is dedicated to trying to make fun of evolutionary theory. Not gonna work. Not now -- not ever.
Quote from Hansel H:
I'm just suggesting here that the ID proponent has a legitimate out from having to explain the nature of the Designer. The debate needn't be held up by this particular hurdle because it's an easy one to step around without going off the track.
I think you phrased that poorly, "has a legitimate out".
They have an "excuse" is what they have, i presume thats what you meant, basically the "yes, but -this-flying spaghetti monster" doesnt need to be addressed, its implied .
Certain microscopic events are such that scientists don't see a pattern, and they can't predict certain microscopic behavior. That's the accurate statement. Not seeing a pattern or know knowing how to predict is not a logical equivalent of knowing for a fact that there is not a program running to make events appear random, or if there is a programmed force at work that acts with intention, rather than acting with a lack of intention.
You among other have confused belief in random events due primarily to ignorance of a pattern or inability to predict behavior with proof of randomness as you have not logically excluded the possibility of a pattern, and have no real knowledge with certainty that the so called randomness is not following a pattern that is beyond the ability of scientists to observe and measure.
"We don't see a pattern" flat out doesn't mean anything beyond seeing no pattern, which is not the same as stating with fact that there can be no pattern.
Scientists have a history of not seeing patterns, thinking that some events are random, only to further own down the road of science realize that there actually are patterns.
Even if a designer generates a program in which the designed program then acts independently from the designer, those actions of the designed are stilled tied to the designer.
It is rather ludicrous how those who have concluded random undirected and causeless appear almost as if to attribute a mind and free of a sentient being willing and motivating to these "random" actions.
An actions is an effect of some motivation, and all that the scientists come up with is "well that's it nature, to act randomly" but when queried on what gave rise to this "nature" they are mute.
How clueless.
To think even the subtlest movements and behaviors of microscopic particles are ungoverned and acting independently of laws of nature and relational forces in existence to all the other particles and natural forces and natural law...attributes a human like personality of randomness, a will of randomness, a mind of randomness to these particles. They are not following a pattern? Says who?
There is a process involved, meaning there is effect, and therefore there is causation...all tied directly back to design and programming.
Scientists fail miserably when trying to predict the actions of human beings, yet the actions of the human beings are a direct product of the thinking of the human mind for the most part. Mind thinks, mind plans, mind decides, body acts is most common. The mind designs in the form of thoughts, then acts on those thoughts, it follow the programming of it own mind.
"But, instead, everything is dedicated to trying to make fun of evolutionary theory. Not gonna work. Not now -- not ever.'
You just forgot to include in the above the really important phrase: "In my opinion."
You among other have confused belief in random events due primarily to ignorance of a pattern or inability to predict behavior with proof of randomness as you have not logically excluded the possibility of a pattern, and have no real knowledge with certainty that the so called randomness is not following a pattern that is beyond the ability of scientists to observe and measure.
"We don't see a pattern" flat out doesn't mean anything beyond seeing no pattern, which is not the same as stating with fact that there can be no pattern.
Scientists have a history of not seeing patterns, thinking that some events are random, only to further own down the road of science realize that there actually are patterns.
Even if a designer generates a program in which the designed program then acts independently from the designer, those actions of the designed are stilled tied to the designer.
It is rather ludicrous how those who have concluded random undirected and causeless appear almost as if to attribute a mind and free of a sentient being willing and motivating to these "random" actions.
An actions is an effect of some motivation, and all that the scientists come up with is "well that's it nature, to act randomly" but when queried on what gave rise to this "nature" they are mute.
How clueless.
To think even the subtlest movements and behaviors of microscopic particles are ungoverned and acting independently of laws of nature and relational forces in existence to all the other particles and natural forces and natural law...attributes a human like personality of randomness, a will of randomness, a mind of randomness to these particles. They are not following a pattern? Says who?
There is a process involved, meaning there is effect, and therefore there is causation...all tied directly back to design and programming.
Scientists fail miserably when trying to predict the actions of human beings, yet the actions of the human beings are a direct product of the thinking of the human mind for the most part. Mind thinks, mind plans, mind decides, body acts is most common. The mind designs in the form of thoughts, then acts on those thoughts, it follow the programming of it own mind.
"But, instead, everything is dedicated to trying to make fun of evolutionary theory. Not gonna work. Not now -- not ever.'
You just forgot to include in the above the really important phrase: "In my opinion."
Quote from kjkent1:
You forgot the really important phrase: "In my opinion."
The proof is simple. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it proves that certain microscopic events in this universe are objectively random.
If something is objectively random, then it cannot be under the control of a designer. Therefore, there is no designer -- at least not scientifically speaking.
You can argue philosophically, that uncertainty is wrong, and that there are hdden variables or other interpretations that falsify randomness.
But, that's all just philosophy until you create an experiment which can predict both the position and speed of an elementary particle with absolute certainty. Many have tried -- all have failed.
That's what the ID advocate should be spending its money on. But, instead, everything is dedicated to trying to make fun of evolutionary theory. Not gonna work. Not now -- not ever.
That was not the problem I was alluding to,...neverthlessQuote from Hansel H:
Re the "Designer problem": Designer can't be understood by Designed ( We can't understand our Designer ).
Quote from Hansel H:
We humans can design computers. While many humans can understand the most sophisticated computer no computer can understand any human. This is because the human is on a higher plane of being than the computer. Similar is the relationship between God and human. No one supporting the Designer argument need define the Designer since the Designer would exist in a manner undefinable by any human; this indefinability would extend to explanations for the coming into being of the Designer.
I await your response.
You say the Designer need not be defined, then you go straight ahead and define It.
That hurdle is not going to be overcome by stepping around it.
Then on top of that there is the "Designer problem"
Been where exactly? Where exactly is "there" prior to the universe. Oh I know that special " there " where no time and space exists in fact nothing exists, not even existence. But of course your special friend has always been there.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Prior to the beginning of the universe, it is logically possible that an eternal designer was, is, and has always been there.
Yeah right, I noticed how you did that you maroon.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
The concept of an eternal designer completely blows your idea that a designer needs a designer out of the pond, though I am not at all surprised that the concept of an eternal designer escapes you.
You can imagine an eternal unknowable designer, but you can't imagine a knowable eternal universe.
uh, how very one dimensional of you.
....then no talent in any thinking will obviously be yours.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Abstract thinking has never been a talent of yours...