Question on Intelligent Design

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

The first part is true, of course. Yet, most of them act as if god lied to everyone?

This sounds like an atheist speaking as if "all theists" believe that god is some entity floating in the sky. Isn't this an huge generalization of what evolutionist actually think? I mean, because a lot of people are Christian, most likely they are christian or a believer of some sort doing their job that has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.

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

Since I'm not a psychologist or scientist, I'll try to find some quotes that best fits what I believe. This is from brief research. I'll put my comments on my belief.

• Energy can be transferred from one object to another.
• Energy comes in many different forms, which can generally be divided into Potential or Kinetic energy.
• Energy can be converted from any one of these forms into any other, and vice versa.
• Energy is never created or destroyed - this is called the First Law of Thermodynamics.

What is Energy?

Basically, energy is the source of everything. It's what make things move, form, have the illusion of creation or decay, and so forth. If you replaced the word god with Energy, the function works the same taking away culture and traditions (sacred scriptures).

"Kinetic energy is the energy of mass in motion. The kinetic energy of an object is the energy it has because of its motion." Energy Basically, that's life. It is energy.

The sun gives us energy, oxygen helps us regulate our energy, everything we do has some form of energy needed in order to perform whatever task needs to be done.

I don't understand an entity being involved in the breathe/energy that sustains life. I can't find the logic in how you see a tree and think there is something that must have created that tree from nothing rather than formed from pre-existing things moved by specific types of energy (and so forth).

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.

Why personify energy, though? What is a creator a part from his creation, really?

Since there is no term to define god and no one can define him, yet still say he exist, that, by itself, makes me scratch my head. Make up your mind! I think. Either you know him or you don't. But if we described god by function (by him actually BEING life not creating it), "he" is easier to define and communicate with. As long as you have "the X factor", we can believe whatever we want, but that doesn't mean they are universal facts.

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?

The thing is, something didn't come from nothing. If you see a building, it wasn't created, it was formed to what we call a building by how we put it together. It's still a lump of bricks. To be more specific, a bunch of atoms. So, if I were a blank slate, I'd have no reason to assume that someone "created" a building from scratch when all they did was picked up bricks and put them on top of each other.

Not everything is created by something or someone. A building, in the English language, we would say "the carpenter created the building;" even though we mean, he took what's already available to him and made it into what we call a building. He didn't create anything. It's an illusion based on shapes and the language we use.

Where did the resources come from? Who knows. Energy isn't created nor does it decay. Why ask the question if it is not logical to assume any resources had a beginning or end if, indeed, all is made up of energy which does not decay nor was created.

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

You give more credit to the builder and belittle those who value the house more than the builder as if the gift is not important than the person who gave it. So, belittling people, say Pagans, who, some, worship the sun is in their right and are right in doing so because they are honoring the gift (or house) that was given or created. While you rather honor the person giving the gift.

Some people honor both. Others, like myself, don't see a builder involved in the scenario. Though, I only find Abrahamics the ones who belittle other religious worldviews on creation. It's an unattractive way of expressing one's faith.

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.

This is your belief, though. It's not something we both can use as a common criteria so we can discuss our differences and similarities on. If we had a common foundation, then it's easier to discuss differences of belief.

I still don't understand how a creator has anything to do with life and nature. We wrote the bible not god/entity. If anything, we are god because the spirit/breathe/energy is who we are as human beings and when we pray and connect with that spirit, we bring out the divinity of god from ourselves to others. It's about social connection between people, self, and environment. Some choose to find it through sacred text others in themselves.

Though, I don't understand it as something external. I've seen spirits but just like the rain outside my window earlier, it's a part of life. Nothing special and nothing dull. We can choose to put it on a pedestal and worship spirit, god, or whomever. Though, I find that unnecessary.

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.

But that doesn't answer why. I know that theists agree upon the unseen. I agree with it too. I've value the unseen. I just don't make it one over another. No spirit over flesh, type of thing. If I separated the two, the only reason I can see the unseen better than the seen is it's the "mystery" in life that people want to solve. They rather not have the puzzle box but to create the puzzle by faith. Some need instructions other theists don't.

To me, the puzzle is valuable with or without the box. I don't understand the hierarchy. That's why I ask.

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.

I can respect that. How I see it is that the visible and invisible are both evidence for our spirit-ual experiences. We don't need to find Noah's Ark for believers to believe Noah exist. I don't know why people try, but evidence doesn't always need to be physical. I don't know why atheist need to find a physical representation of an entity for it to actually exist.

Ya'll both kinda in the same boat with that. To me, everyone, spirits included, are all on the same playing field. Intelligent design, god, universe, cosmos, bug the mess out of me because no one knows the definitions and then you guys say it exist anyway.

"We know X exist, because we believe in it."

"So, what is X?"

"X cannot be defined but we know X can love."

"So you can't define X (cosmos, universe, god, who/whatever) but you can explain what this thing does.....

That's like saying I have a friend who loves me. You ask me to tell me more about my friend, and I tell you I never met him face to face. So, he can't be defined. I have faith that he is my friend and I know he loves me.

We don't need physical evidence (at least I don't) to see the bizarre nature of this situation. No theist has explained it to me without saying faith, bible, or "I dont know."

Take your time.

 

[Deeje]

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.

So what catastrophe on earth ever resulted in something beautiful or beneficial? Would the climbers of Mt Fiji still embark on their 'spiritual quest' if it was smoking and shaking, and warnings were being sounded about an imminent eruption? Would the climbers be tempted to stop and wait for the beautiful part to kick in after the ugly and terrifying bit had passed? Would they even be alive to enjoy whatever that might be?

From a safe distance, this might be viewed as beautiful....but if you were on the mountain.....it might not be so beautiful.
Its all in your perspective, isn't it?

Is the aftermath of a volcanic eruption, beautiful or beneficial?

I can't see it.....

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.

What is bizarre about it? Everything has its place......even viruses and parasites and amoebas. The human gut is home to billions of bacteria, most of them beneficial and useful to boost the body's immune system so that the bad guys don't gain entry or can't survive long. Unfortunately, the diet of modern humans destroys the micro-biome and we succumb to bad bacteria and viruses and we get sick. The original design was awesome....but humans mucked it up. Nothing in this world functions as it was designed to. I believe that the Creator will rectify all that in due time. He doesn't like to see his creation messed up any more than we do.....but we are in the process of a valuable object lesson...learning what happens when humans ignore the laws of their Creator and try to live by their own rules....some will benefit from the lesson, others will choose to remain ignorant and keep on doing what they have always done.

"I did it my way" is highly overrated IMO.

 

[Sapiens]

Well ID science

ID would love to establish itself as science, but so far has failed to do so.

looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell, as well as how they operate thereafter. Evolution doesn't account for the origins as I often here evolutionists concede.

Evolution does not claim to, nor is it required to, "origin" is a different issue and does not speak, one way or the other to the TOE.

So I understand your confusion there, but on the selection process:

remember that natural selection of a significantly superior design goes entirely without saying, intelligent design does not dispute this, that's why there are still Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos- I don't really know anybody who disputes this so that's the 900 Lb straw man in the room

Mustangs where more desired (selected for), pintos were roundly disliked and put out of their misery (selected against). Makes perfect sense in a mechanical sense, that more "fit" was produced in larger numbers.

The real question is how these superior designs first arise, in order to be selected. We know unambiguously that creative intelligence can do this.

No it really does not matter, but case of cars, they were designed by people, in the case of organisms, their "design" was made, one attribute at a time, by natural selection from the suite of mutations available in the population. Really quite simple as long as you stop confusing inanimate objects with living, self reproducing organisms.

But the ToE posits pure, blind chance to supply the superior designs, that's where things get rather problematic

That mistake on your part is getting old, it has been pointed out and corrected repeatedly.

all supported by predetermined universal constants, math, algorithms I'm afraid.



quite the opposite

Unlike Darwinsim, ID science actually accepts the empirical scientific evidence- that the gaps in the fossil record are real, not simply artifacts of an incomplete record as predicted 150 years ago, and some denominations of evolutionists are beginning to accept this also. It has no need for artistic impressions of imaginary creatures

Sheer nonsense, there are no "denominations" to evolutionists and there is no identifiable or characterization group of evolutionary biologists that accept anything of the sort.

It also proposes a proven mechanism for the origination of novel digital information systems required to operate life; creative intelligence. It does not have to imagine some unknown spontaneous mechanism doing likewise- we don't even know if this is possible far less the most probable

No, you have to imagine an invisible friend and designer who is so light in his loafers that he (she or it) never leaves even a hint of a trace but who builds all manner of blunders into the designs just to lead competent scientists astray.

That's another advantage of ID, it offers an explanation for both

hint: you are using proof of it right now (unless you think this software also spontaneously wrote itself for no particular reason)

Nonsense.

I've seen lots, they were all puppies, none had wings

Me neither, and I never expect to ... so what?

again, this software supports variation in text color, size, style, just like dogs come with a capacity for similar variation, otherwise they'd all be clones- it's a pretty logical thing to include in any design

Maybe, but what about the fact that the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer than the right, and in a reasonable blank piece of paper design never would be.

But in either case you cannot write the digital code that supports a capacity for variation- by using the very variation that code supports- : insurmountable paradox

Only in your dreams and imagination.

Hmm was just listening to Sherlock Homes stories!

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?

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

Again you are confusing the attributes and abilities of living, reproducing organisms with inanimate objects.

In other words: atheism must eliminate God from the playing field entirely to allow chance to win out. 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

No, there is no need for a god, as well as no evidence of one.

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!

Yes, but I repeat, you are confusing the attributes and abilities of living, reproducing organisms with inanimate objects.

 

[Deeje]

I don't understand an entity being involved in the breathe/energy that sustains life. I can't find the logic in how you see a tree and think there is something that must have created that tree from nothing rather than formed from pre-existing things moved by specific types of energy (and so forth).

The word translated "spirit" in the Bible means "breath". God formed the body of Adam from the elements of the earth and "breathed" spirit into him. It was the spirit that made him alive. When the spirit goes out (extinguished like a candle) at death, the soul (or living breathing creature,) dies. (Psalm 146:4; Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible says that nothing survives death. The spirit no longer animates the body so the cells, deprived of oxygen, die. Brain death ensues.

Why personify energy, though? What is a creator a part from his creation, really?

God personifies himself. He walked in the garden with Adam, (not physically but spiritually) instructing him and educating him before his wife was created. Jesus Christ came to earth and showed us exactly what sort of personality his Father had. He reflected him in every way....so what is not to love?

Not everything is created by something or someone. A building, in the English language, we would say "the carpenter created the building;" even though we mean, he took what's already available to him and made it into what we call a building. He didn't create anything. It's an illusion based on shapes and the language we use.

Matter is produced by energy. God created matter through exercising his power to produce the materials necessary for creation. He gave the task of creation over to his firstborn son. (Colossians 1:15-16; Proverbs 8:30-31)

Where did the resources come from? Who knows. Energy isn't created nor does it decay. Why ask the question if it is not logical to assume any resources had a beginning or end if, indeed, all is made up of energy which does not decay nor was created.

Energy exists in abundance in the Creator. It is his energy that created the raw materials used in the building blocks of life.
When Genesis says "In the beginning God created", it means that there was a beginning to creation. Before God created, there was nothing but him in existence. We know that creation had a beginning...even science acknowledges that.

You give more credit to the builder and belittle those who value the house more than the builder as if the gift is not important than the person who gave it. So, belittling people, say Pagans, who, some, worship the sun is in their right and are right in doing so because they are honoring the gift (or house) that was given or created. While you rather honor the person giving the gift.

If there is one truth and you believe you have it, is it wrong to want to share that truth with others? No one has to be belittled in the process. It is an offer....nothing more.

I still don't understand how a creator has anything to do with life and nature.

Life cannot spontaneously spring into existence. All life, as we know it, is passed on from pre-existing life. The Creator is the originator of life....the first cause of everything. That is not a difficult concept, surely?

We wrote the bible not god/entity. If anything, we are god because the spirit/breathe/energy is who we are as human beings and when we pray and connect with that spirit, we bring out the divinity of god from ourselves to others. It's about social connection between people, self, and environment. Some choose to find it through sacred text others in themselves.

"We" did not write the Bible. Humans were used as secretaries to record biblical history and to convey the thoughts of the Creator to his human children. He alone is God...the Almighty. He endowed humans with a spiritual component to their nature as a reflection of himself in them. He gave them a conscience and a purpose for their existence. He communicated with humans and offered them a future. He did not do that with any other creature. Reflecting God's moral attributes in no way makes us divine. There is certainly nothing divine about the human race at present.....in fact, when you see the depths to which humans have sunk, morally, spiritually and religiously, it is a shame to admit belonging to the human race. I like the future that the Creator offers. True peace and security and a life filled with enjoyment and purpose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The word translated "spirit" in the Bible means "breath". God formed the body of Adam from the elements of the earth and "breathed" spirit into him. It was the spirit that made him alive. When the spirit goes out (extinguished like a candle) at death, the soul (or living breathing creature,) dies. (Psalm 146:4; Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible says that nothing survives death. The spirit no longer animates the body so the cells, deprived of oxygen, die. Brain death ensues.

I would think it makes more sense for god to BE breathe rather than give it. There is a quote I love so much:

God is the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, earth we trod and died on. The sleep we slept, and the dreams we dreamt, in the everywhere and the everything. Some people don't have a word for god. It is not because god does not exist. It is because he is self-evident; he is assumed. God is so present in everyday life that is life itself.
​

Spiritualist, we believe god is life. God is energy that sustain us and created us. When we heal, pray, and some practice mediumship, they are doing so by spirit/energy and the care and guidance of our loved ones and others of the deceased. All is energy and since energy does not decay, nor does god and spirits.

I honestly can't see how spirit can come from god when god is spirit. It makes more sense that god IS the breathe of life and is the one who is life (not gave it). That makes it more personal in my opinion. If I used the word god, that's what I believe.

As for the bible's view on death, we'd have to agree to disagree. I experienced otherwise.

God personifies himself. He walked in the garden with Adam, (not physically but spiritually) instructing him and educating him before his wife was created. Jesus Christ came to earth and showed us exactly what sort of personality his Father had. He reflected him in every way....so what is not to love?

Aaww, that's cute. You are those icons, I swear.

To tell you honestly, that's kinda creepy-energy personifying itself. We have spirituality or religion (or however you want to name it) by how we build practices to worship and honor (via culture, traditions, and language) that of our given faiths and views. It's our way of making sense of the world. Some people (well millions of people) lose themselves in traditions that they can't see separate than themselves. (Traditions meaning practices and beliefs taught and carried down by generation)

What is not love? I don't view energy as love itself because love is how we define our interaction with people, yourself, and our environment (and some our god(s)). It's a term that means relationship. If someone doesn't have a relationship with life (aka energy/god) that doesn't mean they don't have love. It just means they define and experience love differently than you and I do.

Who am I to say they do not experience love?

Matter is produced by energy. God created matter through exercising his power to produce the materials necessary for creation. He gave the task of creation over to his firstborn son. (Colossians 1:15-16; Proverbs 8:30-31)

I thought matter sustained energy. I'd think creation/production is an illusion, really. Things always existed no matter how small the matter of energy is. Everything/matter is moving, even a chair. I think the only thing that doesn't move much is a block of ice, if I'm not mistaken. Matter isn't solid. Energy isn't solid.

Energy exists in abundance in the Creator. It is his energy that created the raw materials used in the building blocks of life.

Energy IS the sustainer of life (I can't see that apart from life itself). (Breathe meaning it IS life rather than gave it) Without breath, there is no physical life. So how can you give something you already are?

When Genesis says "In the beginning God created", it means that there was a beginning to creation. Before God created, there was nothing but him in existence. We know that creation had a beginning...even science acknowledges that.

Science acknowledges energy. If god gave life, science don't acknowledge what's given but what's created from already pre-existing things. They can't create something from nothing (though they are trying from what I had watched on t.v. once). Everything is formed and shaped. Created is an illusion. We call it created but it is actually just coming into our frame of awareness. No science has yet made an atom so small it disappeared.

Why do you guys keep trying to backup religion with science? Religion (your belief system with god and the bible) isn't based on material (the house) but the person who created it. Once you figure out who created it from a scientific point of view, then I would see the connection. From psychology, it just means synchronicity. You relate something you see and experience to something like the bible which is an isolated book of stories and teachings, made it personal, to where whatever you experience and learn you synchronize it as if the bible taught you this personally. (I know, run on).

Nothing wrong with that. Just bugs the mess out of me when believers don't see the raw nature of their belief. In my opinion, once you see that your belief belief becomes stronger. That's me, though.

If there is one truth and you believe you have it, is it wrong to want to share that truth with others? No one has to be belittled in the process. It is an offer....nothing more.

It doesn't mean you're forcing or being negative about it. The christian faith belittles other religions because of the nature of the religion. It's very political and hierarchy that many other religions do not share. A communist religion.

It's one thing that there exists a belief like that. I can throw it in the trash or disregard. It's another to see a whole society, people, and friends promote this belief. Then don't see the nature of how it oppresses people. It's not intentional (in some cases) but I'm bethaweled that people believe it all because it makes them feel better. What about others?

I can't imagine a religion that puts oneself (their own belief) over others. You think it's the other way around, but if I challenged your belief and told you you would wrong, and leave it to save someone else, most likely you'd defend yourself (which is your right) and keep your belief rather than disregard it for someone else's well being.

It's a selfish religion that goes out to make disciples rather than teach and let people believe what they do without telling them they are wrong about it.

Life cannot spontaneously spring into existence. All life, as we know it, is passed on from pre-existing life. The Creator is the originator of life....the first cause of everything. That is not a difficult concept, surely?

Wait, you said it does by god giving life/breathe to human beings? Did it exist before god gave it or was god the one that created life/breathe he gave to humans?

That's what I said. Everything comes from pre-existing life. (My words: life is formed from life into life. Nothing is a part from it. Just forms and created/made into our existence but never disappears and never just pops out of mid-air)

Just you attribute this to god/entity. I do not.

Not difficult as in logic. I mean, I can understand why a baby would think red is pink if it were dark pink and he hasn't learn to distinguish the colors. It is still wrong, nonetheless. Teachers would probably understand the nature behind his choices. I wouldnt.

I can understand why you'd think god created life since life exists in front of us and you haven't learned that life exists in and of itself without attributing it to something (which some say is human nature to do. I'm sure I'm human, but sometimes I wonder). It is still wrong, nonetheless. Believers will understand the nature behind your belief. I wouldn't.

"We" did not write the Bible. Humans were used as secretaries to record biblical history and to convey the thoughts of the Creator to his human children. He alone is God...the Almighty. He endowed humans with a spiritual component to their nature as a reflection of himself in them. He gave them a conscience and a purpose for their existence. He communicated with humans and offered them a future. He did not do that with any other creature. Reflecting God's moral attributes in no way makes us divine. There is certainly nothing divine about the human race at present.....in fact, when you see the depths to which humans have sunk, morally, spiritually and religiously, it is a shame to admit belonging to the human race. I like the future that the Creator offers. True peace and security and a life filled with enjoyment and purpose.

Dude. You guys literally wrote the bible. The Church picked which ones were sacred. Everyone had a hand in taking out and putting in what they thought was the best teachings of Christ. You guys figure you have the best bible. Yet, Christ taught orally. Hebrew scriptures were not an idol. He taught by words and deeds that came from Moses and Moses from god. He didn't sit down in the room with his disciples, all with their books, and went through chapters and asked questions of inquire. Why would he do that when what they reading points to the person that book is about (according to christians)? (Why look to the scriptures as if they had eternal life; even they testify on my behalf)

But then, I'd think go directly to the source not to the inspired people of the source if I believed in a creator separate from creation.

Shrugs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again you are confusing the attributes and abilities of living, reproducing organisms with inanimate objects.

Well yeah.....look through this thread or any other on ID creationism and you'll see how analogies to non-living things are all they have.

You'd think if ID creationists were going to go around claiming they have this great explanation for the "design in living things", they would first make sure they 1) have a way to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned", 2) be able to point to something in living things that they've determined to be "designed", and 3) provide an actual explanation for how that "designed" thing came to be.

Obviously they have none of those.

 

[james bond]

I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.

If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.

If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.

If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.

1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?

2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?

For example, if the bricks were spread on the floor, it's no longer what we call a house. So, people disregard it as a lump of bricks. But when it's built into a house, then they find value into it.

3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?

A lump of bricks is just as valuable (if we, again, had no definition of reference of what that means to us humans) than the house it is made from. That, and it's an illusion to think there is such thing as a house built by nature.

4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?

All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.

5. If there was a god or creator (Entity that creates without referred to any specific religion), that adds some more confusion to my head. If there is an entity, what is the nature of this entity?

7. If you were to describe First Cause other than it being, well, the First cause, how would you describe what it is?

Then go a bit further.

8. How in the world did you come up with the First Cause being a Who?

Take your time. I do want answers to these questions from both creationist, non-creationist, and those in between.

I don't know anything about evolution and never was into it. What I do know but would like to go to our local museum since it was there that we came from water. So, I'd like to explore that more. But again, that doesn't mean there is a first cause just a place of origin.

I'm not an ID person, but it would follow that we would see signs of intelligence and design around us due to God. One of the arguments for God is beauty and complexity in this world and evolution cannot explain it. I use an example of a coin-toss as simple design. Perhaps we can find something in nature that will give us a 50/50 probability of occurrence if we toss it such as a rock with identifiable sides. However, a 25-piece car model would be an example of a more complex design. We can't just randomly toss the pieces up in the air and hope that it forms back into the car.

The can use the building you presented to explain how your brain/mind works. Everything that you understand of the world is in your brain/mind. That is,we live in a matrix world. Furthermore, you only see 2D objects, but the brain/mind changes it so you "see" in 3-dimensions. Just put on an eye patch and walk around. It will take a bit of adjustment to get used to it and your mind will continue to interpret in 3D, but it can't do it as well as with two eyes. Just looking at your building from the front, you can't see it in 3D. Your mind would fill out its depth automatically. If the building was just a front, then you would be surprised as you walked around to the back as your mind was tricked.

With the eye patch on, have a friend or family member stretch a rope across a room in your house without telling you where it is. You won't be able to tell where it is unless you have familiar objects nearby. Even then it may be difficult.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't call it intelligence, but I'd assume

They have a way to differentiate "designed" from "undesigned

Something undesign would probably be scattered clouds. Then design would be birds flying in a specific shape to the east or west depending on weather. It's not weather nature as a design or not but that they attribute it to intelligent design, which I honestly don't know why.

be able to point to something in living things that they've determined to be "designed

Since everything works together in life, I guess one can consider that design.

provide an actual explanation for how that "designed" thing came to be.

That's defined through science, psychology, archeology, and all the other sciences that study the connection between different forms of life, our environment, how we think, and interact around others.

Just people make it supernatural. It really isn't.

 

[viole]

Well ID science looks at accounting for the very origins of the information systems in the cell, as well as how they operate thereafter. Evolution doesn't account for the origins as I often here evolutionists concede.
So I understand your confusion there, but on the selection process:

remember that natural selection of a significantly superior design goes entirely without saying, intelligent design does not dispute this, that's why there are still Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos- I don't really know anybody who disputes this so that's the 900 Lb straw man in the room

The real question is how these superior designs first arise, in order to be selected. We know unambiguously that creative intelligence can do this.

But the ToE posits pure, blind chance to supply the superior designs, that's where things get rather problematic

Well, if the promulgators of ID have been designed, then their position negates the premise. Therefore, ID is false.

QED

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Something undesign would probably be scattered clouds. Then design would be birds flying in a specific shape to the east or west depending on weather. It's not weather nature as a design or not but that they attribute it to intelligent design, which I honestly don't know why.

Since everything works together in life, I guess one can consider that design.

It's probably important to note that you and I are approaching this from different perspectives. I'm holding ID creationism to the standards of science, since ID creationists keep insisting that it is scientifically valid. You seem to be treating it more as a religious belief. Now, I agree that's much more accurate and is how ID creationism should be viewed. But for the purposes of these types of discussions, I approach it as an evaluation of ID creationists' claims that it is good science.

That's defined through science, psychology, archeology, and all the other sciences that study the connection between different forms of life, our environment, how we think, and interact around others.

Just people make it supernatural. It really isn't.

That's the whole point of ID creationism. That's why its advocates spend time and resources trying to redefine science in state science standards, to something other than science being a method to explain "natural events through natural processes".

 

[Valjean]

The word translated "spirit" in the Bible means "breath". God formed the body of Adam from the elements of the earth and "breathed" spirit into him. It was the spirit that made him alive. When the spirit goes out (extinguished like a candle) at death, the soul (or living breathing creature,) dies. (Psalm 146:4; Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible says that nothing survives death. The spirit no longer animates the body so the cells, deprived of oxygen, die. Brain death ensues.

God personifies himself. He walked in the garden with Adam, (not physically but spiritually) instructing him and educating him before his wife was created. Jesus Christ came to earth and showed us exactly what sort of personality his Father had. He reflected him in every way....so what is not to love?

Matter is produced by energy. God created matter through exercising his power to produce the materials necessary for creation. He gave the task of creation over to his firstborn son. (Colossians 1:15-16; Proverbs 8:30-31)

Energy exists in abundance in the Creator. It is his energy that created the raw materials used in the building blocks of life.
When Genesis says "In the beginning God created", it means that there was a beginning to creation. Before God created, there was nothing but him in existence. We know that creation had a beginning...even science acknowledges that.

If there is one truth and you believe you have it, is it wrong to want to share that truth with others? No one has to be belittled in the process. It is an offer....nothing more.

Life cannot spontaneously spring into existence. All life, as we know it, is passed on from pre-existing life. The Creator is the originator of life....the first cause of everything. That is not a difficult concept, surely?

"We" did not write the Bible. Humans were used as secretaries to record biblical history and to convey the thoughts of the Creator to his human children. He alone is God...the Almighty. He endowed humans with a spiritual component to their nature as a reflection of himself in them. He gave them a conscience and a purpose for their existence. He communicated with humans and offered them a future. He did not do that with any other creature. Reflecting God's moral attributes in no way makes us divine. There is certainly nothing divine about the human race at present.....in fact, when you see the depths to which humans have sunk, morally, spiritually and religiously, it is a shame to admit belonging to the human race. I like the future that the Creator offers. True peace and security and a life filled with enjoyment and purpose.

You're preaching, Deeje, and not a particularly well reasoned or factual Sermon.

 

[Valjean]

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

No. Natural law makes no decisions. It just is.

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?

Decision implies conscious choice. Atoms aren't making conscious choices, they bond automatically, by the unconscious laws of physics.
Show me some tangible evidence that the universe is not automatic.

Patterns come from a design of some kind

No. Patterns are an emergent property of unguided, unconscious natural law.

ToE

This is getting old. How many times do we need to point out that evolution is not pure chance.

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?

We imply unintelligent design because this is what the evidence points to, and because an appeal to magic is unreasonable. We don't go out of our way to avoid a designer. A designer, and any other magical explanation is excluded from the beginning, as is every explanation with no supporting evidence.

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.

As you say, the 'instructions' are automatic, unconscious, properties of the molecules themselves. Freezing water molecules need no hand of God to arrange themselves into patterns.

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?

You're really stretching here. Watches are designed and manufactured. They don't reproduce with variation, so natural selection doesn't apply.

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 Deus ex quantum field?.

But first you have to produce some evidence for this God. You're proposing an unnecessary element. Why do you keep grabbing for an invisible, magical designer?

 

[Valjean]

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.

But religion proposes no mechanism, it just invokes God. Indeed, it has a history of suppressing any research into mechanism

... If something demonstrates purpose, then it is designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind....not blind chance.

And life and the universe do not demonstrate purpose, order, yes, but not purpose.

ghNo mechanism exists in "nature" that was not designed by the Creator to fit in with all the other mechanisms that interact with each other.

Now you're just preaching.

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 beaautiful.

Aerobic life? The Moon? The great Lakes? Hawaii?
Depends how you define 'catastrophe," though."

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.

Hogwash! You don't have a shred of evidence for this assertion, whereas we see things automatically ordering themselves every day.

Seriously, you guys just make me shake my head.

Ditto.

 

[Valjean]

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

One is a magical personage, the other a pantheistic, conscious everything.

So, how is the universe intelligent to create an intelligent design and make what we think of ourselves as intelligent beings?

Your question presupposes an intelligent design.

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.

You need to establish your major premise before making claims for it.
Make a case for God.

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.

And Hindus see the creator with four faces and four arms.
Individual insight isn't evidence.

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.

No, it takes faith to believe the proposal with no evidence. Science hates faith. It believes only that for which there is evidence.

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.

Preaching again.
So you're saying God prefers dimwits who cannot use reason or logic to form opinions? God hates research and critical analysis?

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.

But you have yet to produce any visible evidence of His existence. Everything you propose can be explained naturally.

We see his wisdom expressed in scripture.

Scripture as in the Bible? A more brutal, contradiction filled, edited, fantastical compilation can hardly be imagined. Have you read the Bible?
Much of the Bible makes no sense at all. I wouldn't call that wisdom.

We see his personality reflected in his son.

Ahura Mazda had a son?

 

[godnotgod]

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?

AN intelligent design-ER would be an entity that designs. Therefore, the design is a product of the design-ER. This is the classic theistic notion of a creator-God, or 'maker, the metaphor being that of the potter and his pot; an artifact; ie; a made 'thing', of which man is included. This is The Ceramic Model of The Universe. Man is made of clay and only has life when the creator-God breathes it into him.

Now even though the word 'Universe' is a noun as thought of in human terms, the Universe is no such thing, no pun. What we call 'The Universe' is an ACTION, one metaphor being an ocean wave, which is not a thing, though we think of it that way, or a whirlpool. These two are activities, not things, the source of which both are ENERGY. In fact, current thinking in Quantum Physics now reveals that all particles in The Universe are not particles at all, but standing waves created as a result of energy fluctuations in the fields from which they emerge. IOW, there are no 'things' perse; 'reality' is virtual. (This is in accordance with both Hindu and Buddhistic teachings, the former that of maya (ie illusion), the latter that of Sunyata, or Emptiness.) So firstly, The Universe is an action, and secondly, it is an illusory action, one being projected by a conscious intelligence some call The Unified Field; Brahman, etc. But the point here in contrast to an intelligent designer, is that The Universe as projected is none other than the Consciousness that is doing so. IOW, as the great Vedantist Vivekenanda said:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
[bracketed quote mine, for emphasis]

Since The Absolute is the same as The Universe*, The Universe is intelligent. There is no 'creation' as such. That is just an error in our thinking. There is manifestation. The Universe is essentially an illusion, though a pretty convincing one, since it responds to all five of our senses for validation as being 'real'. But that is the nature of the illusion and its caliber. Besides, the senses at some point are unreliable. We have to go to higher ground to pierce the illusory facade we call 'Universe'. But to do that, the thinking mind which creates the conceptual screens of Time, Space, and Causation must first be brought to a complete halt. At that point, it will be realized that you are, as you have always been, at one with That which is manifesting The Universe. So as the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi', or 'Thou Art That'.

Even ego possesses intelligence, though misdirected perhaps. Do you think there is no intelligence anywhere in The Universe?

*The Universe is Everything that exists, including intergalactic space. Therefore, it is not only an absolute, but is The Absolute, since there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. It also means there can be no external 'creator-God' responsible for its coming into being, since, as The Absolute, it must also INCLUDE such a creator-God. Essentially what this means is that what we call 'creator-God is none other than The Universe itself: 'creation' occurs,unfolds from WITHIN.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A lot of what you said I could not pronounce and understand.

What we call 'The Universe' is an ACTION,

This, I agree with. Making it a noun Id assume would make it solid even though enery doesnt work that way. Verb would be a better term, Is assume.

Since The Absolute is the same as The Universe*, The Universe is intelligent.[ /QUOTE]

I dont understand the connection. You said the universe is an action. How can an action be intelligent? If its a thing (person/place/thing), that can have attributes like intelligence though I wouldnt know how. Applying intelligence to a action does not make sense logically (only english language). Unless its an adverb, maybe.

What is The Absolute?

Cosmos
Universe
The Absolute
God
Infinite Intelligence

Are just words with abstract and vague definitiins. When I ask specifics, its "we dont know" or "beyond human understanding" or "only by faith". Its not just abrahamics that do this.

 

[godnotgod]

No. Natural law makes no decisions. It just is.

That's convenient but explains nothing.

Were you aware that what you call 'natural law', which is none other than 'the laws of the Universe', was an idea inherited by Reason from Judaism and Christianity? Reason simply eliminated the Law-Maker, and kept the laws.

But even if that were not the case, and natural law simply 'just is', as you say, being law, it is responsible for the ordering of The Universe. Now if you were somehow in charge of ordering The Universe, would you need to make decisions as to exactly how this ordering were to occur?

Decision implies conscious choice. Atoms aren't making conscious choices, they bond automatically, by the unconscious laws of physics.

Again, 'laws', which direct ordering of phenomena. Could it be that Consciousness is simply pre-configuring this bonding, making it automatic, just as your breathing and heart beat during sleep is also automatic?

Famed physicist Freeman Dyson, would disagree with you:

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice betweenquantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

A quote by Freeman Dyson

Show me some tangible evidence that the universe is not automatic.

Are you capable of making measured, intelligent decisions? If that is the case, then we are not talking about automatic response.

A fully automatic universe would be rigid, machine-like, and uncreative. But everywhere we look, we see great creativity and proliferation of form, occurring within repetitive frameworks. There is no real reason for any of this, other than for its own sake, the likes of which can only amount to pure delight, similar to a child mesmerized by a kaleidescope.

No. Patterns are an emergent property of unguided, unconscious natural law.

But 'natural law' is in itself a pattern. So what is the source of this 'law'?

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod said: ↑
"Since The Absolute is the same as The Universe*, The Universe is intelligent".[ /QUOTE]

Carlita said: ↑I dont understand the connection. You said the universe is an action. How can an action be intelligent? If its a thing (person/place/thing), that can have attributes like intelligence though I wouldnt know how. Applying intelligence to a action does not make sense logically (only english language). Unless its an adverb, maybe.

The action and the intelligence are one and the same. In moments of creativity, in art, poetry, dance, etc, this is exactly the case. The ego; the thinking mind, are forgotten for a time, and some other intelligent force asserts itself. The artist is just a vehicle for the creative action taking place. When it is over, the ego comes back into play to think of itself as the 'doer', and the outside world as 'object'. This is the illusion of duality.

In order for you to do even a fraction of what The Universe is doing, photosynthesis, for example, would any intelligence be required on your part?

Carlita said: ↑What is The Absolute?

Cosmos
Universe
The Absolute
God
Infinite Intelligence

Are just words with abstract and vague definitiins. When I ask specifics, its "we dont know" or "beyond human understanding" or "only by faith". Its not just abrahamics that do this.


For you to realize what The Absolute is; what The Universe is, you would have to be That itself. You don't think you are That, because you have been indoctrinated to see things in terms of 'self and other'; in a subject/object split, and because you are seeing things conceptually. But the conceptual subject/object split is occurring only in the mind, not in reality. In reality, you are not separate from That in any way whatsoever. You, in reality, are none other than That. Enlightenment is the realization that you are That, a microcosm in every respect of The Universe itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

godnotgod said: ↑
"Since The Absolute is the same as The Universe*, The Universe is intelligent".[ /QUOTE]

Carlita said: ↑I dont understand the connection. You said the universe is an action. How can an action be intelligent? If its a thing (person/place/thing), that can have attributes like intelligence though I wouldnt know how. Applying intelligence to a action does not make sense logically (only english language). Unless its an adverb, maybe.

The action and the intelligence are one and the same. In moments of creativity, in art, poetry, dance, etc, this is exactly the case. The ego; the thinking mind, are forgotten for a time, and some other intelligent force asserts itself. The artist is just a vehicle for the creative action taking place. When it is over, the ego comes back into play to think of itself as the 'doer', and the outside world as 'object'. This is the illusion of duality.

In order for you to do even a fraction of what The Universe is doing, photosynthesis, for example, would any intelligence be required on your part?

Carlita said: ↑What is The Absolute?

Cosmos
Universe
The Absolute
God
Infinite Intelligence

Are just words with abstract and vague definitiins. When I ask specifics, its "we dont know" or "beyond human understanding" or "only by faith". Its not just abrahamics that do this.


For you to realize what The Absolute is; what The Universe is, you would have to be That itself. You don't think you are That, because you have been indoctrinated to see things in terms of 'self and other'; in a subject/object split, and because you are seeing things conceptually. But the conceptual subject/object split is occurring only in the mind, not in reality. In reality, you are not separate from That in any way whatsoever. You, in reality, are none other than That. Enlightenment is the realization that you are That, a microcosm in every respect of The Universe itself.

Please explain this in simple language. You dont need to mae the topic mysterous in order to understand whstt it meanit is not availabe for some but not for others. Its simple human knowledge that does not need to be made complex and mysterious.

 

[godnotgod]

Please explain this in simple language. You dont need to mae the topic mysterous in order to understand whstt it meanit is not availabe for some but not for others. Its simple human knowledge that does not need to be made complex and mysterious.

I don't see what the problem is. There is nothing 'mysterious' here. The simplest way I can put this is to say that 'You are That', and that the way to realize it is to just see, without thought, that reality. That is all.