Couldn't design it if you tried

[Subduction Zone]

Explain?

A world of randomness is not the only alternative to a world designed by an intelligence.

 

[George-ananda]

A world of randomness is not the only alternative to a world designed by an intelligence.

Explain?

I would think that without an intelligence with intent how are any results anything other than random?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain?

I would think that without an intelligence with intent how are any results anything other than random?

Why would you think that? You do realize that there are physical laws that cause the opposite of "random" don't you?

 

[George-ananda]

Why would you think that? You do realize that their are physical laws that cause the opposite of "random" don't you?

But why are there those physical laws or any physical laws or not different physical laws? With the exclusion of intelligent intent physical laws can only be random too. That is what I am getting at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But why are there those physical laws or any physical laws or not different physical laws? With the exclusion of intelligent intent physical laws can only be random too. That is what I am getting at.

I don't know. But that in no way supports a claim of randomness.

 

[Valjean]

You seem a little feisty today!

But he makes a good point. If you can't produce actual, physical evidence of a claim it must remain a subjective, personal belief.

What I meant was I would rather live in a universe with an intelligent plan than in one of randomness.

But we're not talking about what we'd like, we're talking about reality.

I think things like DNA and the mindboggling complexity of life is most reasonably understood as the result of intention as opposed to chance but I am not saying 'chance' can be ruled out as impossible either.

Reasonably?
I think you're arguing from ignorance and incredulity. Those who understand the mechanisms of evolution don't find it mind boggling at all.
Reason dictates natural rather than magical causes, and a universe of stable laws that aren't constantly changing as God makes adjustments.

But why are there those physical laws or any physical laws or not different physical laws? With the exclusion of intelligent intent physical laws can only be random too. That is what I am getting at.

Here's where the chance comes in. The laws just are. Perhaps there have been, or are, billions of universes with different laws, but your question only arises in those that, by chance, permitted suns, planets and intelligent life.

 

[Tiberius]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

Start with a thing, then let it copy itself. Let the copy be changed very slightly. If the copy works better, then repeat the process using it. If the copy works worse than the original, destroy the copy and start again with the original.

Keep going like this. You'll eventually get something extremely complicated.

 

[George-ananda]

But he makes a good point. If you can't produce actual, physical evidence of a claim it must remain a subjective, personal belief.

I was clearly stating thing as a personal subjective belief of what I think makes the most sense.

Reasonably?
I think you're arguing from ignorance and incredulity. Those who understand the mechanisms of evolution don't find it mind boggling at all.
Reason dictates natural rather than magical causes, and a universe of stable laws that aren't constantly changing as God makes adjustments.
Here's where the chance comes in. The laws just are. Perhaps there have been, or are, billions of universes with different laws, but your question only arises in those that, by chance, permitted suns, planets and intelligent life.

Any universes and any complex life forms are mindboggling to me.

However, I also consider other wisdom traditions (Vedic) in addition to science in forming my subjective opinion. I see the universe as a play/drama of Brahman as the most reasonable position out there.

 

[Valjean]

I was clearly stating thing as a personal subjective belief of what I think makes the most sense.

Any universes and any complex life forms are mindboggling to me.

However, I also consider other wisdom traditions (Vedic) in addition to science in forming my subjective opinion. I see the universe as a play/drama of Brahman as the most reasonable position out there.

I think we're largely of the same mind here, George, but I like to keep my personal, spiritual beliefs out of intellectual discussions, as I can't reasonably support them.
I'm a Brahmin-believing Vedanti myself, but, as I can't empirically justify my belief, I don't propose it outside of spiritual discussion. In intellectual discussions, and I'm very suspicious of anyone who agrees with me if they can't empirically support their views.
"I was clearly stating thing as a personal subjective belief of what I think makes the most sense."

Here's my problem: when you use the verb "think" and the noun "sense" you make the statement intellectual and empirical; you appeal to reason. You're overlapping magisteria, As Gould would say.

 

[Polymath257]

But why are there those physical laws or any physical laws or not different physical laws? With the exclusion of intelligent intent physical laws can only be random too. That is what I am getting at.

Well, at the subatomic level, there *is* a lot of randomness. But when you get a very large number of random events, that can lead to predictability.

You speak of physical laws as if they require a cause. But, when it comes down to it, causality *is* a type of physical law. So it just doesn't make much sense to ask for the cause of those laws.

As for the issue of intelligence. Intelligence requires a complex interaction of parts, which means causality is operative and thereby physical laws exist. To have intelligence requires physical laws (and complex physics) already there. So using intelligence as an explanation for complex processes seems to me to be exactly backward.

But, what we *do* know is that the physical laws we have come to understand allow and promote complexity. They are highly non-linear and sensitive to slight differences in initial state. They are exactly the type of laws that can produce the complexity we see around us.

Finally, we have to either assume physical laws exist originally or, in your system, we have to assume a complex intelligence not founded on physical laws. The simpler of the two scenarios seems, to me, to be the first.

 

[George-ananda]

I think we're largely of the same mind here, George, but I like to keep my personal, spiritual beliefs out of intellectual discussions, as I can't reasonably support them.
I'm a Brahmin-believing Vedanti myself, but, as I can't empirically justify my belief, I don't propose it outside of spiritual discussion. In intellectual discussions, and I'm very suspicious of anyone who agrees with me if they can't empirically support their views.
"I was clearly stating thing as a personal subjective belief of what I think makes the most sense."

Here's my problem: when you use the verb "think" and the noun "sense" you make the statement intellectual and empirical; you appeal to reason. You're overlapping magisteria, As Gould would say.

Who said our personal views on the thread discussion topic are out of bounds. Who says we are restricted to just mainstream science in our thinking on this topic?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, at the subatomic level, there *is* a lot of randomness. But when you get a very large number of random events, that can lead to predictability.

You speak of physical laws as if they require a cause. But, when it comes down to it, causality *is* a type of physical law. So it just doesn't make much sense to ask for the cause of those laws.

As for the issue of intelligence. Intelligence requires a complex interaction of parts, which means causality is operative and thereby physical laws exist. To have intelligence requires physical laws (and complex physics) already there. So using intelligence as an explanation for complex processes seems to me to be exactly backward.

But, what we *do* know is that the physical laws we have come to understand allow and promote complexity. They are highly non-linear and sensitive to slight differences in initial state. They are exactly the type of laws that can produce the complexity we see around us.

Finally, we have to either assume physical laws exist originally or, in your system, we have to assume a complex intelligence not founded on physical laws. The simpler of the two scenarios seems, to me, to be the first.

The point I was making was that without a 'conscious intent' things can only 'just happen that way'.

 

[gnostic]

What I meant was I would rather live in a universe with an intelligent plan than in one of randomness.

I think things like DNA and the mindboggling complexity of life is most reasonably understood as the result of intention as opposed to chance but I am not saying 'chance' can be ruled out as impossible either.

Well, as to your last part. I personally consider my views better than Young Earth Creationists.

You say that your view are better than the YECs, but you are doing exactly the same things that all YECs do.

You are making things up about reality, based on your personal belief, without any way to verify your claims.

I don’t claim to be expert on astrophysics and cosmology, but what I have managed to read and understand about the Big Bang, the universe is far just being random.

And I was never a biology student...Year 9 high school science, don’t count...but what I have managed to pick up and understand in the last 12 years, evolution isn’t random too.

The whole “intelligence” being the cause, is not based on reality, and have no scientific basis.

They are simply just your wishful thinking.

You want to believe it that fine with me, but if you are going to present your belief in a Evolution vs Creation thread, then you need to present either evidences or cite peer-reviewed scientific sources, before you convince me.

 

[George-ananda]

You are making things up about reality, based on your personal belief, without any way to verify your claims.

Do I claim my beliefs are verifiable?

I am giving my personal opinions just as I am interested in hearing others opinions on the subject.

Why is this question restricted to physical science? What is wrong with considering other wisdom traditions say in the question too?

You want to believe it that fine with me, but if you are going to present your belief in a Evolution vs Creation thread, then you need to present either evidences or cite peer-reviewed scientific sources, before you convince me.

If you are only interested in physical science then you can ignore my additional thoughts. What's your problem with ignoring them?

 

[ecco]

I think things like DNA and the mindboggling complexity of life is most reasonably understood as the result of intention

Just like all Creationists - It's so complex it's gotta be GodDidIt.

Lightning and thunder are so complex - it must be a GodDoinIt.

 

[ecco]

The point I was making was that without a 'conscious intent' things can only 'just happen that way'.

Like two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom just happening to be mutually attracted.

Intent?

 

[George-ananda]

Just like all Creationists - It's so complex it's gotta be GodDidIt.

Lightning and thunder are so complex - it must be a GodDoinIt.

I also draw on wisdom traditions (Vedic) in addition to mainstream science in forming my views.

Why can only mainstream science address this question?

 

[dfnj]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

I really like this post because you have it really thought out well. However, an omnipotent God is certainly able to model, simulate, and experiment every possible step in creating man equally, if not better, than anything that could be done by natural selection and evolution over millions of years.

 

[dfnj]

I don't think that anyone on the science side has said that God or gods have been disproved. It has only been shown that there does not appear to be a need for one.

You do realize the statement "It has only been shown that there does not appear to be a need for one" is purely a subjective opinion. Weather or not God is needed or not needed for evolution to occur is an non-provable subjective judgment. Even though there is no evidence for God's existence or God's involvement (or evidence that you would accept as evidence of God's participation), doesn't mean you can claim God is not participating in the definitive.

 

[ecco]

Just like all Creationists - It's so complex it's gotta be GodDidIt.

Lightning and thunder are so complex - it must be a GodDoinIt.

I also draw on wisdom traditions (Vedic) in addition to mainstream science in forming my views.

Why can only mainstream science address this question?

The question is what causes lightning and thunder.

Do you want to take your answer from:

1. The God of the OT
2. Vikings 3000 years ago
3. Indra
4. Science

If you choose anything other than 4, you are a Creationist.