intelligent design

[bushidogrendel]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

 

[Skwim]

For those who have committed themselves to the rule of their religion, logic doesn't necessarily trump faith.

BTW, welcome to the site.

 

[Acim]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

In my opinion, you are missing understanding of what Creation is. It is less about "making something" and more about Causal relationship. At a certain level of what you are asking / assuming, you get this, for the knowledge of this relationship is within you (as I understand things). But it is important to realize 2 things:

- ideas (think of Creation as idea) do not leave their Source
- and Creation is not bound by space/time.

The second one is challenging to explain / describe for reasons you can guess (I think). The first one, I find, helps if you understand that We are spiritual extensions of Creator. Not, creator is over there, we are over here, and the two are vastly different, separate and having different purpose. Our purpose is to be Creator as well. Or this is our will. When this purpose is not bound by time and space, it is then properly understood as "free will." The other definition of freewill is one I see as misnomer, and is clearly referencing freedom of choice(s).

What you are getting at with "who created (original) Creator" is something I and many have gone round and round with. I have glimpses into how to find 'answer' to this dilemma, but will admit I don't believe I can provide answer that all doubters will be without doubt. Especially given illusion of separation between "you" and "me" and between "Creator" and "Creation." With that illusion firmly in place, blinding sight, it becomes challenging to explain the logic at work. But I'll try.

It is simply a shift to Eternity. Simple, right? LOL.

(At risk of appearing to proselytize, I put next section in as "spoiler." If wanting to not have info on how I think Eternity can be found, skip to next paragraph.)

Spoiler: ways to understand

In reality, shift to Eternity is simple. In space / time, it is as great a separation from where I appear to be, as the next galaxy over. Even further than that. In Eternity (of which I've had glimpses), the linear aspect of how we, in time, identify cause and effect is dissolved. This dissolution can show up, from an allegiance to a linear framework, as disturbing and disorienting. I find it (before achieving glimpses) incredibly tempting to resist it in a way that I can only describe as fear. There is part of my mind that desperately wants to know, willing to learn, curious to explore, but when it comes to "finding out" there is a temptation to retreat. I understand this mainly as fear of losing my self, though in the moment it is felt, it seems deeper than whatever intellectual spin I put on it here.

There are (at least) 2 ways to glimpse at Eternity while maintaining human existence. One is to contemplate Now. Google "contemplation" and find method that works for you. This way is a bit more intellectual, but I find it works. Now is eternal if you think about it for all of 5 seconds. Contemplation that is deliberate, patient, and willing to go deeper than say 8 seconds of attention span, will provide glimpse of Eternity.

The other way to glimpse Eternity is challenging to put into words, but I try. Let's call it meditation, seeking inner teacher, finding pattern of Reason from within. All of those may be seen as questionable, but I'm doing my best. This is less intellectual, and may rely on a few things to get there. (Real) Skepticism could help, especially if it is skepticism around concept of "now." When going within, in ways that can be achieved with Guidance (say from outer Guru), the experience can be had with method, and not something that is willy nilly, airy fairy, maybe, maybe not. Devotion and sense of willingness are helpful matters for those with serious intent, and light hearted disposition. I find it is best to not take self over serious in meditation. Perhaps that's just me.

I say all this, because with meditation, I truly believe (feel I have good reason to say) one can experience stronger glimpse of eternal framework. Me, I've had the experience for days, and not just minutes. I could explain much about this, but for now, I just wish to make point that experience can be something that is more than intellectual version of insight that is seconds long.

When Eternity is realized at an acute level, Creator is not seen / understood as 'needing something before it, for it to be Reasonable.' Here in intellectual framework, it is mandatory for something before it to be considered, otherwise, as you have pointed out, it may be unreasonable or confusing. This is where understanding fails to achieve what experience takes for granted.

I'll also just add, way down here at the bottom, that for me "Intelligent Design" is provided evidence by the existence of Science. This is theory I am working on, and not one I am prepare to argue well, though still open to debating it. I predict that us as beings of Reason, utilizing scientific method is (possibly objective) empirical evidence, that there is intelligent designer for this universe. I obviously do not subscribe to notion of designer that is disconnected from the design.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

Hi Bushidogrendel!

I had always thought that evolution made sense - that we humans had evolved from another hominid - and that a creator wasn't necessary. Now that I'm taking Human Biology this semester I'm not so sure anymore. I still think lifeforms evolve from other life forms, but after learning how complex even a single cell is, and all the parts that are necessary for it to even function (like sodium-potassium pumps) I just don't understand how life could have started on its own. Maybe there are smarter people out there that can explain how the first cell assembled by chance, but I personally can't understand how it all got started on its own. I guess it doesn't really matter, as my beliefs don't hinge on there being a creator or not, but I think most humans are curious as to where and how life got started.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Hi Bushidogrendel!

I had always thought that evolution made sense - that we humans had evolved from another hominid - and that a creator wasn't necessary. Now that I'm taking Human Biology this semester I'm not so sure anymore. I still think lifeforms evolve from other life forms, but after learning how complex even a single cell is, and all the parts that are necessary for it to even function (like sodium-potassium pumps) I just don't understand how life could have started on its own. Maybe there are smarter people out there that can explain how the first cell assembled by chance, but I personally can't understand how it all got started on its own. I guess it doesn't really matter, as my beliefs don't hinge on there being a creator or not, but I think most humans are curious as to where and how life got started.

Peace and blessings
Yeshe
:flower2:

single cell organisms are surprisingly complex.
How precursors of autonomous cells took that first step to reproduction is indeed an interesting phenomenon.
Purposeful Complexity is the main function of Evolution.

 

[Koldaramor]

Incredible events, is true to be sometimes. There is not an intelligent design as described by religions. Even if you have a design, is not fair and reasonable. Because the complex and bad state of the world is obvious.

Watch video.

http://www.vidivodo.com/252184/komik-tekerlek-yarisi

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

We have all the failed worlds filtered out thanks to a principle sometimes dubbed the Anthropic Principle. There is no living things to contemplate their existence in worlds that failed to shape the world as we know it. Intelligent design? well it does give the appearance of being made that way, which is a major factor as to why there are so many believers. But that is a bit like believing the light is always shining brightly in the fridge whether it is opened or shut. Our intuition may deceive the uninitiated that it couldn't have been different, but if cheese mould had brains they would be aware they were in darkness most of the time while the fridge door was shut and the sudden burst of light as someone opens the door would be a brief interruption to their comfort zone. But cheese mould does not have brains and neither does any of those exotic non living things which are forever locked away in failed universes.

 

[rusra02]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

All that is built has a builder. Intelligent design requires intelligence, and there is no evidence that intelligence exists apart from a mind belonging to a person. We can rail against the concept that someone created the heavens and the earth, but the evidence is overwhelming that someone did. That someone is God. Where did God come from?
The Bible says that Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting, meaning he had no beginning and will never have an end. (Revelation 4:10, Psalm 80:2)
The human mind cannot fully understand infinity, any more than a young child can fully understand a parent. Numbers, space, time, all appear to be infinite. While it is clear the universe had a beginning, not so with our Creator. (Jude 25) Can we fully understand this? No, nor should we expect to be able to understand all there is to know about our grand Creator. While a young child may not fully understand his father, he can know much about him, especially that his father loves him. (John 3:16)

 

[PolyHedral]

No evidence, even theoretical, can say "intelligent design." The only way you can arrive at that as a conclusion is for the designer himself to claim credit. He has not done so.

Besides, your post above assumes something that hasn't been shown to be true: that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[rusra02]

No evidence, even theoretical, can say "intelligent design." The only way you can arrive at that as a conclusion is for the designer himself to claim credit. He has not done so.

Besides, your post above assumes something that hasn't been shown to be true: that the Bible is the word of God.

So a house just builds itself? What evidence would convince you that the house was built by an intelligent person. Only if the designer claims credit? Would not the house itself be proof it had a maker?
In fact, God has claimed credit for his creation. Isaiah 45:18 says; "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."

The Bible has been shown to be the word of God. The evidence for it's Divine authorship is there for those willing to examine it. Men who choose to ignore the evidence do not thereby prove the Bible is not the word of God. Millions believe lies about the fundamental facts of life, but their false beliefs do not invalidate the truth. "What, then, is the case? If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." (Romans 3:3,4)

​

​

​

​

 

[bushidogrendel]

So a house just builds itself? What evidence would convince you that the house was built by an intelligent person. Only if the designer claims credit? Would not the house itself be proof it had a maker?

do you really not see the problem with your statement????

if we were to compare our complex existence to house and sarcastically ask SO A HOUSE HAS NO BUILDER/CREATOR?? and then righteously ask the question WOULD NOT THE HOUSE ITSELF BE PROOF IT HAD A MAKER??

we would have to compare the infinitely more complex builder/creator of the house to a mansion and sarcastically ask, SO A MANSION HAS NO BUILDER/CREATOR??? and then righteously ask the question WOULD NOT THE MANSION ITSELF BE PROOF IT HAD A MAKER??

WHAT IS MORE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE? that a simple structure like a house was not created, or that a complex structure like a mansion was not created??

 

[McBell]

So a house just builds itself? What evidence would convince you that the house was built by an intelligent person. Only if the designer claims credit? Would not the house itself be proof it had a maker?
In fact, God has claimed credit for his creation. Isaiah 45:18 says; "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."

And if I claim to to be the one who created everything would that be good enough for you as well?
If not, why is it good enough for God?

The Bible has been shown to be the word of God.

No it hasn't.
The only thing the Bible has going for it are the people who believe it is the word of god.

The evidence for it's Divine authorship is there for those willing to examine it.

Where?
In the Bible?
Please see my claims to being the one who created everything...

Men who choose to ignore the evidence do not thereby prove the Bible is not the word of God.

Those who make unsubstantiated claims do not prove anything either...
Just saying.

Millions believe lies about the fundamental facts of life, but their false beliefs do not invalidate the truth.

Careful, you are playing with double edged sword...

"What, then, is the case? If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." (Romans 3:3,4)

Using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is true only works for the choir.

 

[PolyHedral]

So a house just builds itself?

Can you rule out all other options, both known and unknown, both probable and implausible? You can't; ergo, you "can't" conclude the house was designed, unless the designer himself stands up and claims. (Which he does, because construction firms advertise.)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?
if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.
if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.
isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

Atheist Antony Flew concluded that DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangement which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.

A key element in the question of origin is: dust.

Humans are intelligently designed with 41 chemical elements such as carbon, iron, oxygen, etc. all present in earth's: dust.

But how did lifeless building blocks come together to form a living life?
Humans are intelligently made up some 7 octillion atoms, 100 trillion cells, 9 major organ systems.....

As Mr. Flew mentioned the complexity. So, blind chance is highly unlikely.
So, where did the 'spark of life' come from ?
Psalm [104v30] answers that God sends forth his spirit [spark of life] and we are created. [intelligently designed].

Humans have intelligently cloned life from existing life, and if humans can use biological matter then the Adam and Eve account of God using biological matter such as Adam's rib is intelligently possible.
Surgeons routinely use the rib bone in re-constructive surgery because of its ability to re-grow and replace itself.

Jewish ancestry lists Adam as a real person at 1st Chron 1v1. [Luke 3v38]
Adam, according to Gen [2v19], was intelligent enough to coin names for the animals.

Where did the intelligent idea of marriage [binding legal contract] originate?
According to Genesis [2v24] in Eden.

So, the A&E account matches with known science besides having harmony within Scripture and society.

But, Richard Dawkins thinks the universe has no design, no purpose, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Such a dark outlook goes totally contrary to our human nature. What healthy person wants to pick the day they want to die?
Rather, when possible, don't people enjoy taking a vacation in paradisaic conditions and surroundings such as a trip to a beautiful island paradise ?

 

[idav]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

Intelligent design doesn't answer the question of our origin logically because it supposes that intelligence needs to come from intelligence. This in itself is a fallacy. I'm prone to accept that intelligence emerged from non-intelligent means. So logically it seems non-intelligent design is the cause of our origins. Assuming that an intelligent creator could come about by chance means it is just as likely our origins can come from chance as well.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If the universe was intelligently created then why the waste? Why are there so many planets devoid of life or anything else particularly interesting like the rings of Saturn? I mean if there was an intelligent designer the universe would be a far more different place to what we observe. I would be like a motor car manufacturer with only one in a million of the cars that come off the assembly line which actually works. Or that proverbial infinite number of tornados in and infinite number of junkyards and there are bound be an exponential fraction of them accidently assembling a 747. We don't look on that as anything other than random happenstance, and certainly not a miracle.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

If the universe was intelligently created then why the waste? Why are there so many planets devoid of life or anything else particularly interesting like the rings of Saturn? I mean if there was an intelligent designer the universe would be a far more different place to what we observe. I would be like a motor car manufacturer with only one in a million of the cars that come off the assembly line which actually works. Or that proverbial infinite number of tornados in and infinite number of junkyards and there are bound be an exponential fraction of them accidently assembling a 747. We don't look on that as anything other than random happenstance, and certainly not a miracle.

Hi St Giordano Bruno!

First, I want to say that your user name intrigued me and I looked him up. An amazing story! And how sad that even now he hasn't been vindicated by his own Church.

I'm not even close to being a science major, so perhaps you know, as this has been bothering me ever since I took human biology - do scientists have any model for how the first cell could have formed, or are they really relying on the argument that if you have all the parts a cell would spontaneously assemble? After learning how complex even one cell is, I have a hard time grasping the idea that such a thing could happen. Is there some proto-cell that might have formed first? I can't even understand how just the cell membrane with its phospholipid bilayer could form spontaneously. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can't seem to find any scientific source that will either explain the mechanics of it or admit that they just plain don't know.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Acim]

WHAT IS MORE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE? that a simple structure like a house was not created, or that a complex structure like a mansion was not created??

That a structure which is discernible as having pattern / design was created by one with intelligence and intent to design.

Speaking from Reason, of course.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Hi St Giordano Bruno!

First, I want to say that your user name intrigued me and I looked him up. An amazing story! And how sad that even now he hasn't been vindicated by his own Church.

I'm not even close to being a science major, so perhaps you know, as this has been bothering me ever since I took human biology - do scientists have any model for how the first cell could have formed, or are they really relying on the argument that if you have all the parts a cell would spontaneously assemble? After learning how complex even one cell is, I have a hard time grasping the idea that such a thing could happen. Is there some proto-cell that might have formed first? I can't even understand how just the cell membrane with its phospholipid bilayer could form spontaneously. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can't seem to find any scientific source that will either explain the mechanics of it or admit that they just plain don't know.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

I don't think there is any decent scientific modelling as to how the first living cell emerged or “abiogenisis” that I know of, but it may come in due course. It is just one of those gaps of mystery that has yet to be explained unlike other explanations to the natural world which have been previously attributed to the hand of God such as lightning cause by charge ions in the atmosphere and not God and earthquakes being cause by plate tectonics and not the direct hand of God. Abiogenisis is just another one of those gaps that people keep conjuring up God like some epistemological putty to fill or the “God of the Gaps” in other words.

 

[Acim]

And if I claim to to be the one who created everything would that be good enough for you as well?
If not, why is it good enough for God?

If yes, that the claim was good and fine, then what?

Those who make unsubstantiated claims do not prove anything either...
Just saying.

Depends on who's listening.

Using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is true only works for the choir.

And using the body to prove the body (physicality) works for the choir. Funny, ain't it?