Question on Intelligent Design

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. Familiar, understood mechanisms we experience in everyday life are much more probable than magic.

Agree 100%!, we experience functional information systems designed by creative intelligence every day.. we are doing so right now

Not so much by chance though... that would take magic!

 

[godnotgod]

An excellent synopsis, but, for me, "intelligence" implies a facility with data manipulation and decision making.
..... "intelligence" implies a conscious, decision-making entity, rather than a quantum field.

Not possible to have an intelligent quantum field that makes decisions without a decision-making entity? Remember, a quantum field is not a 'thing', but energy itself.

Isn't evolution, for example, full of data manipulation and decision making, but without a data manipulator or a decision maker?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not sure how those are examples of ID creationism explaining how anything happened or providing a mechanism.

They're not. 'ID creationism' is magic, the links are examples of mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

Agree 100%!, we experience functional information systems designed by creative intelligence every day.. we are doing so right now

Not so much by chance though... that would take magic!

Who's positing chance?

 

[Valjean]

Not possible to have an intelligent quantum field that makes decisions without a decision-making entity?

Isn't evolution, for example, full of data manipulation and decision making, but without a data manipulator or a decision maker?

I agree, things happen because of natural law -- no manipulator needed. But why call it 'intelligent'? It's just physics/chemistry.

 

[godnotgod]

Agree 100%!, we experience functional information systems designed by creative intelligence every day.. we are doing so right now

Are you sure you're not confusing design with pattern?

 

[godnotgod]

I agree, things happen because of natural law -- no manipulator needed. But why call it 'intelligent'? It's just physics/chemistry.

You had just defined intelligence as comprising decision making and data manipulation. Isn't that what is occurring via 'natural law'?

A decision must be made when and how to bond one atom with another in a very specific way. How a DNA molecule finalizes itself involves data manipulation. This involves decision making.

Your position seems to be that of the 'Fully Automatic Universe'; a machine. But is that really the case?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you sure you're not confusing design with pattern?

Patterns come from a design of some kind

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who's positing chance?

ToE

 

[godnotgod]

Patterns come from a design of some kind

But design carries with it the implication of a willful, planned activity via a design-er, whereas patterns do not. Patterns, as someone recently pointed out, can be something like snowflakes occurring spontaneously. Having said that, I will say that there is conscious intelligence behind all phenomena. In the case of snowflakes, we have infinite variety, which makes the possibility of intelligence even more probable, not less.

I do not agree with the notion of an intelligent designer, but do see an intelligent Universe, out of which intelligent beings emerged. If the Universe is not intelligent, can you show how intelligent beings emerged from it? Ultimately, we are talking about non-material consciousness emerging from unconscious material. Essentially, this is called 'Emergent Theory', but as it turns out, is not actually a bona-fide scientific theory at all, but only a hypothesis at this point. Some materialists attempt to get around the 'hard problem' by saying that there is no such thing as consciousness at all; that everything is just chemical reactions. I'm going to create 'Mind in a Test Tube' toys for sale and make millions.

 

[Jose Fly]

They're not. 'ID creationism' is magic, the links are examples of mechanism.

Ok, I think we just miscommunicated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But design carries with it the implication of a willful, planned activity via a design-er, whereas patterns do not. Patterns, as someone recently pointed out, can be something like snowflakes occurring spontaneously. Having said that, I will say that there is conscious intelligence behind all phenomena. In the case of snowflakes, we have infinite variety, which makes the possibility of intelligence even more probable, not less.

Design, plan, blueprint... whatever term you prefer- it's a little difficult to describe many things in nature without implying a designer, perhaps because there was one?- we don't know, but why go out of our way to search for a word that implies unintelligent design, that extra detour denotes even more of a bias does it not?

Patterns need those designs to work from whatever their origin, and snowflakes are good examples, they form according to predetermined instructions written into the math in molecular structures and the subatomic physics that supports them in turn.

So we could call a watch produced by an automated watch factory 'spontaneous and un-designed' by the exact same rationale applied to snowflakes.
i.e. automated function does not = automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well don't you think?

I do not agree with the notion of an intelligent designer, but do see an intelligent Universe, out of which intelligent beings emerged. If the Universe is not intelligent, can you show how intelligent beings emerged from it? Ultimately, we are talking about non-material consciousness emerging from unconscious material. Essentially, this is called 'Emergent Theory', but as it turns out, is not actually a bona-fide scientific theory at all, but only a hypothesis at this point. Some materialists attempt to get around the 'hard problem' by saying that there is no such thing as consciousness at all; that everything is just chemical reactions. I'm going to create 'Mind in a Test Tube' toys for sale and make millions.

It's a good point, all our discussions here that we see on screen, can be shown to be merely materialistic electrical signals also- but that doesn't make those signals the actual origin of the creative content!.

The concept of a remote, ephemeral 'cloud' of intelligence, able to interact with billions of people simultaneously anywhere in the world.. was considered religious pseudoscience up until very recently.

If us mere mortals can make use of this system, it's difficult to argue that God- be it the universe itself or something transcending, would not do likewise. After all we did not invent these means of remote communication, we merely discovered that they exist

 

[Ponder This]

Hmm was just listening to Sherlock Holmes stories!

I'm a fan too.

So that would be the point, unless we can 100% utterly eliminate any person possibly arranging the stones, that is by far the more probable explanation right?

It is but the first possibility to come to mind.
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." - Sherlock Holmes

So too with God, if we merely allow both (God and unguided natural mechanisms) the slightest chance to exist, the more probable is clear.

How are you determining the chances?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes

In other words: atheism must eliminate God from the playing field entirely to allow chance to win out. But the same does not apply the other way around, you can keep all the natural mechanisms you like, God is still the less improbable explanation

Are you saying that we can rule out that the stones just happened to wash up on shore that way simply because there is a chance that God exists?

 

[Deeje]

They're not. 'ID creationism' is magic, the links are examples of mechanism.

And with the wave of a hand the potter is eliminated from any connection to his many and varied productions....and the artist from his artwork. Do you demand to see evidence of the potter when you buy a nice piece of his work? Or do you take for granted that artfully designed pottery requires a skillful potter as well as a known sequence in the production of his pieces?

Do you call into question his abilities and craftsmanship every time you look at his work or do you just assume that the pottery was the "natural" consequence of matter assembling itself through those known sequences? What is "natural" in an evolutionist's mind?

Is "Mother Nature" a more preferable "parent" than a "Father" God?

I see this word "magic" appearing as if it somehow describes the Creator. Is he some sort of celestial wizard in your minds...'poofing' things into existence with a word? It doesn't seem as if you can connect "mechanisms" with the mechanic.
What mechanisms do humans use on a daily basis that were not designed for their task by an inventive mind? If something demonstrates purpose, then it is designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind....not blind chance.

No mechanism exists in "nature" that was not designed by the Creator to fit in with all the other mechanisms that interact with each other.

If the creation of the universe was just an accidental cataclysmic event, then tell me what cataclysmic event on earth (minuscule by comparison) ever produced something beneficial and beautiful?

Hurricanes.......

Earthquakes....

Volcanoes.......

Rebuilding is always necessary to restore order. Undirected natural forces would not restore order, it requires an intelligent and orderly mind to accomplish it......it does not happen by itself.

Seriously, you guys just make me shake my head.

 

[McBell]

Almost as frustrating as evolutionists claiming "NaturalSelectionDidIt".

Your dishonesty is duly noted.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I shall try to be as succinct as possible in answering the essential question of this thread, on the idea of a "first cause." I think anybody should be able to see that it is deeply illogical to try to explain something difficult (like, "why is there something, rather than nothing -- because anything with a beginning must have a cause?") by inserting something even more difficult to explain. This is the essence of what is being done with the "uncaused cause," which presumes:

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. therefore, there must be something that doesn't begin to exist that is not only very powerful but also purposeful and creative to be that cause.

Statement 2 is infinitely more complex than simply assuming that existence (something rather than nothing) must therefore be the default state, and everything else merely the result of processes that depend only upon the nature of that something, over immense(possibly infinite) time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But design carries with it the implication of a willful, planned activity via a design-er, whereas patterns do not. Patterns, as someone recently pointed out, can be something like snowflakes occurring spontaneously. Having said that, I will say that there is conscious intelligence behind all phenomena. In the case of snowflakes, we have infinite variety, which makes the possibility of intelligence even more probable, not less.

I do not agree with the notion of an intelligent designer, but do see an intelligent Universe, out of which intelligent beings emerged. If the Universe is not intelligent, can you show how intelligent beings emerged from it? Ultimately, we are talking about non-material consciousness emerging from unconscious material. Essentially, this is called 'Emergent Theory', but as it turns out, is not actually a bona-fide scientific theory at all, but only a hypothesis at this point. Some materialists attempt to get around the 'hard problem' by saying that there is no such thing as consciousness at all; that everything is just chemical reactions. I'm going to create 'Mind in a Test Tube' toys for sale and make millions.

What's the difference between intelligent designer and intelligent universe?

Both are nouns and the former can supposedly form and "create" life no different than the universe can by forming and creating things in and of itself.

That, and we are not intelligent. That's ego talking. We are a part of a egoless universe just as everything else. So, how is the universe intelligent to create an intelligent design and make what we think of ourselves as intelligent beings?

 

[Deeje]

Not all non-believers are evolutionalist, though. National selection or life evolving naturally and sustained by energy among other things is just a fact. I don't understand how you can devalue this, really.

Not all evolutionists are unbelievers.....yet most of them act as if God lied to everyone.
Either God "created" like he said he did...or he didn't.

Can you define "energy" in the context of your statement?

I see the Creator as possessing pure dynamic energy, put to work by the will of an all-powerful entity, the likes of whom no human can even imagine. There is no point in trying to define him....we have no terminology for "what" God is. He calls himself a "spirit"....we mere mortals have no idea what that even means. We have nothing in our language that adequately defines this personage we call God. We have lots of descriptive words though.

If I replaced intelligence in my OP with god, and I was a blank slate looking at a building, why and how would I assume that the building was created from nothing?

No, you would assume that the materials used in the building were created by someone and that they used available resources to make them. Where did the resources come from? What is matter, since all material things are classified as matter?

Everything is "created" or formed to what we define in our existence by pre-existing things. So, if I found out someone built this house, why would I put more value and just disregard the house and worship the builder?

Who said we must disregard the house? Can we not admire the house whilst giving credit to the builder?

The Bible isn't a science book and science books admit they know nothing. So neither party can say anything is a fact; they can just theorize, make claims, and state what writer's believe but that's it.

This is why the Bible says we need faith. It takes faith to believe either way. Either the teachings of the Bible are true or the words of scientists are true. We choose who to believe and what we choose, and the reasons for our choices, tell the Creator a lot about us. He has unobtrusively been collecting information about us all our lives. He knows us better than we know ourselves....so come the judgment (which I believe is close now) there will be no excuses to offer the appointed judge.

Why is the unseen more sacred than the seen?

Who knows. No one has answered that question either. Why?

Because the 'unseen' is what theists base their beliefs upon.....all theistic religions do this. It is often the only thing they have in common.
If we know the reasons why God is 'unseen', then we concentrate on what is visible as evidence to validate his existence. We see his wisdom expressed in scripture. We see his personality reflected in his son. We see his qualities revealed in nature. He is worthy of our worship and millions are very happy to give it to him. No one deserves it more, in our opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I shall try to be as succinct as possible in answering the essential question of this thread, on the idea of a "first cause." I think anybody should be able to see that it is deeply illogical to try to explain something difficult (like, "why is there something, rather than nothing -- because anything with a beginning must have a cause?") by inserting something even more difficult to explain. This is the essence of what is being done with the "uncaused cause," which presumes:

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. therefore, there must be something that doesn't begin to exist that is not only very powerful but also purposeful and creative to be that cause.

Statement 2 is infinitely more complex than simply assuming that existence (something rather than nothing) must therefore be the default state, and everything else merely the result of processes that depend only upon the nature of that something, over immense(possibly infinite) time.

This was hard to understand; but, I'd say nothing is created but formed from pre-existing things into what is new to us but not by natural law. If an intelligent designer did exist, wouldn't we have evidence by our differing DNAs if, indeed, there is such thing a creation?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And with the wave of a hand the potter is eliminated from any connection to his many and varied productions....and the artist from his artwork. Do you demand to see evidence of the potter when you buy a nice piece of his work? Or do you take for granted that artfully designed pottery requires a skillful potter as well as a known sequence in the production of his pieces?

Do you call into question his abilities and craftsmanship every time you look at his work or do you just assume that the pottery was the "natural" consequence of matter assembling itself through those known sequences? What is "natural" in an evolutionist's mind?

Is "Mother Nature" a more preferable "parent" than a "Father" God?

I see this word "magic" appearing as if it somehow describes the Creator. Is he some sort of celestial wizard in your minds...'poofing' things into existence with a word? It doesn't seem as if you can connect "mechanisms" with the mechanic.
What mechanisms do humans use on a daily basis that were not designed for their task by an inventive mind? If something demonstrates purpose, then it is designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind....not blind chance.

No mechanism exists in "nature" that was not designed by the Creator to fit in with all the other mechanisms that interact with each other.

If the creation of the universe was just an accidental cataclysmic event, then tell me what cataclysmic event on earth (minuscule by comparison) ever produced something beneficial and beautiful?

Hurricanes.......

Earthquakes....

Volcanoes.......

Rebuilding is always necessary to restore order. Undirected natural forces would not restore order, it requires an intelligent and orderly mind to accomplish it......it does not happen by itself.

Seriously, you guys just make me shake my head.

Good thing you only have one head to shake -- you cause a whole lot of other people to shake theirs!

This entire universe is the result of a catastrophe (called the "big bang," you may have heard of it) and it is both beautiful and ugly, awesome and terrifying, and any number of other contradictory things you can think of. The beauty of Mount Fuji in Japan, which millions climb in spiritual quest every year, is still just a volcano.

And yet, many of the things that you think could not have come about without your creator are as ugly as can be -- parasites, viruses and amoebae that you don't think could arise through simple evolution -- and that cause some of the greatest misery known to our species -- must therefore be the creation of you god.

Bizarre way of believing, if you ask me.