Intelligent Design is not creationism

The conclusion of the article was all that mattered.

The rest is just a bunch of statistical freaks engaged in pure speculation.

"Carrier's point is that the first life was almost certainly much simpler than the biology currently existing."

Another incalculable speculation put across as "almost certainly."

Too funny.

"Whereas the creator, being the set of infinitity, cannot be assigned a probability."

It has been discussed previously that "the Creator" need not be a set of infinity.

Any set, even a "set of infinity" would be confined by the constraints of the concept as a set, implying that there would be something existing outside of that set.

The totality of all possible combinations of sets is not itself a set at all, it is unbounded in any way as there is nothing outside of it to bind it. The source of all possible sets is not a set itself. Sets are limited by definition, defined by boundaries, even an infinite set.

God is beyond all sets and non sets simultaneous, beyond definition by any possible boundaries. God is not physical.

Oh, and the odds of something non physical existing prior to the existence of the universe is 100%.

I got no answers previously, you can give it the old school try:

1. Could pure mathematical theory ever not have existed or could it cease to exist?

2. What is the probability that pure mathematical theory did not exist before human beings appeared on this earth? Did it exist prior to the appearance of the physical universe? If all human beings vanished, if the physical universe ceased to exist, what would be the odds that pure mathematical theory would continue to exist?

"People besides yourself actually have knowledge to impart."
I disagree. People have no knowledge to impart to others, they only have information.

I don't really expect you to understand the difference between the two, for as you may appear to be informed, you do not appear to me to be knowledgeable enough to understand the difference between the two.

Quote from kjkent1:

I agree -- no one knows what the first life was. Carrier's point is that the first life was almost certainly much simpler than the biology currently existing, and therefore that the odds of it arising by accident are much GREATER than calculated by the various persona referred to in his article.

My comments give the benefit of the doubt to the most conservative estimate of accidental life possible.

But, it doesn't matter, because the key word is POSSIBLE. Accidental development of life is possible, and therefore a probability can be assigned.

Whereas the creator, being the set of infinity, cannot be assigned a probability.

I don't really expect you to understand. But, it's nice that you bothered to read the cited article. That's actually a fairly dramatic step forward for you. People besides yourself actually have knowledge to impart.

Welcome to the real world.
More...
 
Quote from kjkent1:

The existence of metauniverses is unproven at this time. There are two theories on how they may be created: string theory; the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

String theory provides 10^500 possible universes in which to find life. Each universe could have a different cosmological constant, and produce the same or different outcomes from our own.

The many worlds interpretation provides an infinity of alternate futures, each stemming from wave function collapses. It also makes the notion of randomness irrelevant, because in this interpretation, anything that can possibly happen, actually does happen, in at least one universe.

But, just like with the creator, there's no physical evidence to prove the above-described theories, at this time. So, while we can speculate about what may be true, what we know is true is that we live in this universe and that life exists.

The formation of life may be the product of some sort of clay and polypeptide interaction, or the result of wave bubbles breaking on some ancient shore, but we have yet to duplicate the effort which nature has apparently accomplished: a simple self-replicating molecule.

There is one scientific theory which does explain this event entirely: random chance. A simple self replicating molecule could have been assembled by accident. No matter how improbable that event seems, it is nevertheless within the sphere of physical possibility, therefore it cannot be absolutely dismissed.

And, as the fossil and genetic physical evidence suggests that all life is the product of common descent, this supports the notion of a pure accident.

The alternative: god did it, is, not within the realm of physical probability.

If God is an extra-universal actor, then He is no more scientifically provable (at this time), than are the string theory/many worlds meta universes. All three of these theories are still philosophy.

If God is a part of this universe, then the probability of the spontaneous creation of an organism of limitless power is infinitely more unlikely than is the random chance of abiogenesis. The point being that when you assign limitless possibilities to a selection set, you render all probabilities of the existence of God infinitely improbable.

Returning to the basket of green and red apples, what is the probability of pulling a green apple from a basket filled with an infinity of red apples:

Zero. Or, more precisely, 1/infinity -> 0.

Which doesn't mean that the green apple isn't in the basket. It does mean that there is no scientific method of assigning a probability to God's existence, and that no matter how improbable our self replicating molecule may be, it is infinitely more probable than the alternative of God.
More...
appreciate the thoughtful response KJ thanks

i guess what i was dismissive about is the whole business of probabilities when the terrain of even this one observable universe is still so unknown and poorly understood on the large & small scales (dark matter, dark energy, quantization of space-time, entanglement etc, big bounce (i mean, who is still dumb enough to believe in a single big bang?)) and despite our ever-increasing ability to identify sufficiently reliable causal frameworks of reference.

am aware of the 10^500 type vacuas allowed by mainstream string theory but so what, if its the wrong theory? where is the Higgs boson?... will the LHC commence ops in May 2008 as planned... we shall see...

LQG, p-adic string theory, sthg else... we've still got some way to go... thankfully!
:p
 
Quote from Hansel H:

My argument is based on considerations of possibilities, yours on assertions.

Enlighten us. How did you come to this state of certainty?

And why is it impossible that "damn lucky monkeys" hold a priviledged position in the scheme of things?
More...

Is this for armoured saint?
 
Quote from 2cents:

appreciate the thoughtful response KJ thanks

i guess what i was dismissive about is the whole business of probabilities when the terrain of even this one observable universe is still so unknown and poorly understood on the large & small scales (dark matter, dark energy, quantization of space-time, entanglement etc, big bounce (i mean, who is still dumb enough to believe in a single big bang?)) and despite our ever-increasing ability to identify sufficiently reliable causal frameworks of reference.

am aware of the 10^500 type vacuas allowed by mainstream string theory but so what, if its the wrong theory? where is the Higgs boson?... will the LHC commence ops in May 2008 as planned... we shall see...

LQG, p-adic string theory, sthg else... we've still got some way to go... thankfully!
:p
More...
I think that the Higgs boson will be found. I also think that Everett's many worlds is the quantum version of Susskind's string theory.

Most of these things will probably be sorted out before this thread ends. :p
 
Quote from armoured saint:

uhhh, what are the choices again please :confused:
More...

The choice is between hallucinations and reality, insanity and sanity.
Here's a demonstration that makes a point in regards the creation of this world.

Mind Bender

These people are bending forks! Wow!
Only, the camera shows that the bending is all in their mind.
They are convinced they are seeing forks bending because they see it together.

Now, imagine reality is the fork, and a very powerful mind is looking at it.
Through suggestibility, the mind begins to imagine things about reality that are not true.
In it's mind, the fork is twisted, bent, distorted.

The mind is yours.
The suggestions come from the IDcreature.
A whole other world is seen to be 'real'.
Science is the study of the bent fork.
The fork evolves, changes.

The choice is to snap out of it, or linger within an illusion.
Reality remains unchanged.
So you remain unchanged by the temporary experience.
The world is a mind-bender. A trick. A spell. A perception.

Jesus
 
Quote from armoured saint:

uhhh, what are the choices again please :confused:
More...

The world is a lot like this wicked video/parable.

Waking Dead

The world begins as a mind trick that puts you in a catatonic trance. One minute you're just playing a game, the next your in the game. Only in this game, the name of the game is attack. In this video, the 'victim' of the prank is always safe. But for a short time, he did not think so. Fear seemed to overpower him, making the game very very real for him. He felt compelled to defend himself through attack. As soon as he drops his weapon, he is safe, and finds himself back at the pub having a beer with his freinds. The trickster is the IDcreature who makes this world by putting suggestions in your mind. It uses your mind for it's existence. It exists only so long as you are in a trance. Fighting for survival, it comes up with some ingenious schemes to keep you distracted.

The choice is between a catatonic trance, and a beer with your friends.
The choice is between the walking dead, and the nectar of the gods.

Cheers,

Jesus
 
Quote from kjkent1:


Whereas the creator, being the set of infinitity, cannot be assigned a probability.

Welcome to the real world.
More...

It is true. So it is meaningless to talk about the probability of the existence of the creator. How can one then compare the probability of existence of the unknown creator and the creation by accident?

Existence of the "unknown" creator is outside the domain of the Math or Science. It is a lot easier to discuss about the possibility of the existence of a "known" creator (e.g. Budda, Jesus or the God described in OT).
 
yip:
>How can one then compare the probability of
>existence of the unknown creator and the
>creation by accident?

From your following statement (below) it's clear you mean the above as a rhetorical.

>It is a lot easier to discuss about the possibility of the
>existence of a "known" creator (e.g. Budda, Jesus or
>the God described in OT).

Perhaps for you. Not for others.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top