• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There Can be no "Intelligent Design"

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I don't need to. Use whatever thing is in existence today explode it, electrocute it, or mix it with chemicals bring it to life any thing you want to do. I'll wait and accept your belief then.
Take what ever you consider the first life, nurture it , mate it, give it drugs create an intelligence the can create a watch and I'll take back all I said. I'll wait and accept your belief then.
You don't even have to duplicate just show me the actual path intelligence took so that man can make a watch, take the closest creature to us and show me scientifically reproducible steps to get the intelligence to create a watch. I'll wait and accept your belief then.

If its is not scientifically credible which means ability to duplicate among other things, it might as well be God.

So you want me to duplicate in my lifetime what took billions of years to happen naturally.

Why is it you need no proof? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It isn't that you don't need to. It's that you can't and you know that. You are asking me to detail every step in abogenisis before you will accept it. And yet you are unwilling to supply the same detail about how your god did it.

Your assertion is far more unlikely than abiogenis. You are not only assertimg life came from non-living matter (dust) but are then asserting that there was also a supernatural god involved.

Nobody has said we understand all the details of abiogenesis. But we are getting closer to an understanding. We have a number of pieces of the puzzle. But it is okay to say we do 't know and keep looking. It is not okay to fill in the holes in our knowledge with "god did it".
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
So you want me to duplicate in my lifetime what took billions of years to happen naturally.

Why is it you need no proof? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It isn't that you don't need to. It's that you can't and you know that. You are asking me to detail every step in abogenisis before you will accept it. And yet you are unwilling to supply the same detail about how your god did it.

Your assertion is far more unlikely than abiogenis. You are not only assertimg life came from non-living matter (dust) but are then asserting that there was also a supernatural god involved.

Nobody has said we understand all the details of abiogenesis. But we are getting closer to an understanding. We have a number of pieces of the puzzle. But it is okay to say we do 't know and keep looking. It is not okay to fill in the holes in our knowledge with "god did it".

Close is only good in hand grenades and horseshoe's

Personally I am Atheist Agnostic what that boils down to is that I don't believe you can prove or not prove God but personally I don't believe in one.
As to intelligent design, It is just as likely that an intelligence set all this in motion and at key points created life and then created intelligence or it all happened on its own through the big bang theory, abiogenesis and evolution.
You just don't like the word God to fill in your blanks because why?
Scientist's do believe in the conservation of information
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/conservation_of063671.html
Where did this information come from why does it stay how is it different from intelligence? All valid questions.
Can you prove the God of any written book has flaws, yes you can. Can you prove that there is no intelligence to reality, no you can't. Creative intelligence is here with us and no explosion, evolution or shaking of any box will ever explain it.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So you want me to duplicate in my lifetime what took billions of years to happen naturally.

Why is it you need no proof? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It isn't that you don't need to. It's that you can't and you know that. You are asking me to detail every step in abogenisis before you will accept it. And yet you are unwilling to supply the same detail about how your god did it.

Your assertion is far more unlikely than abiogenis. You are not only assertimg life came from non-living matter (dust) but are then asserting that there was also a supernatural god involved.

Nobody has said we understand all the details of abiogenesis. But we are getting closer to an understanding. We have a number of pieces of the puzzle. But it is okay to say we do 't know and keep looking. It is not okay to fill in the holes in our knowledge with "god did it".
Besides, even if we were absolutely positively sure we knew every step of abiogenesis, that doesn't mean we could replicate it. We can't even replicate two identical medium sized snowflakes, because the variables in the seed crystal are too numerous for us to control (though it could be done in theory). That doesn't mean we couldn't understand every step of the process to a large degree of certainty.
 

McBell

Unbound
I don't need to. Use whatever thing is in existence today explode it, electrocute it, or mix it with chemicals bring it to life any thing you want to do. I'll wait and accept your belief then.
Take what ever you consider the first life, nurture it , mate it, give it drugs create an intelligence the can create a watch and I'll take back all I said. I'll wait and accept your belief then.
You don't even have to duplicate just show me the actual path intelligence took so that man can make a watch, take the closest creature to us and show me scientifically reproducible steps to get the intelligence to create a watch. I'll wait and accept your belief then.

If its is not scientifically credible which means ability to duplicate among other things, it might as well be God.
an argument from incredulity to support a god of the gaps?
Seriously?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Your posts shows otherwise.

You never had anything you thought was clever that you would like to get out. His watch analogy allowed me to get it out. He could of ignored it and I would have just left it at that. Kinda like you could of ignored it.
 

McBell

Unbound
You never had anything you thought was clever that you would like to get out. His watch analogy allowed me to get it out. He could of ignored it and I would have just left it at that. Kinda like you could of ignored it.
What can I say, I am bored.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
an argument from incredulity to support a god of the gaps?
Seriously?

Incredulity imply's out of Belief. I have no belief in God. I believe in facts and there are none concerning life or intelligence it is all speculative theory.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Close is only good in hand grenades and horseshoe's

Personally I am Atheist Agnostic what that boils down to is that I don't believe you can prove or not prove God but personally I don't believe in one.
As to intelligent design, It is just as likely that an intelligence set all this in motion and at key points created life and then created intelligence or it all happened on its own through the big bang theory, abiogenesis and evolution.
You just don't like the word God to fill in your blanks because why?
Scientist's do believe in the conservation of information
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/conservation_of063671.html
Where did this information come from why does it stay how is it different from intelligence? All valid questions.
Can you prove the God of any written book has flaws, yes you can. Can you prove that there is no intelligence to reality, no you can't. Creative intelligence is here with us and no explosion, evolution or shaking of any box will ever explain it.

It is not necessary to prove there is not any intelligent being behind the universe or life, just as it is not necessary to prove unicorns don't exist

You are making the assertion that the intelligence exists and then when asked for evidence for your assertions you say you don't need any. So why would you ask others for evidence?

Coming back to where I started on this thread, how do you distinguish this as an intelligently made universe when you cannot say what a universe not made by an intelligence would look like?

With the watch, you have seen other watches, you already know they are made in a factory. That is how you distinguish it. It contrasts to the natural world. If it did not and you had no prior knowledge it would not contrast, except perhaps if it was the only watch on the beach. But that would only make it unique.

The watchmaker argument does not hold water, never has
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
It is not necessary to prove there is not any intelligent being behind the universe or life, just as it is not necessary to prove unicorns don't exist

You are making the assertion that the intelligence exists and then when asked for evidence for your assertions you say you don't need any. So why would you ask others for evidence?

Coming back to where I started on this thread, how do you distinguish this as an intelligently made universe when you cannot say what a universe not made by an intelligence would look like?

With the watch, you have seen other watches, you already know they are made in a factory. That is how you distinguish it. It contrasts to the natural world. If it did not and you had no prior knowledge it would not contrast, except perhaps if it was the only watch on the beach. But that would only make it unique.

The watchmaker argument does not hold water, never has

Conservation of Knowledge is your answer. Intelligence has always existed so there never was a time it did not exist. You could not have a universe without intelligence.

All scientific laws point to an intelligence of sorts to the universe. Without basic laws or rules there would be no universe. What is intelligence. What happens without gravity, electro magnetism, weak force, strong force without these fundamental forces there is no universe. One could point to them as the basic intelligence of the universe. Combine them into everything or one thing and that could easily be God.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Incredulity imply's out of Belief. I have no belief in God. I believe in facts and there are none concerning life or intelligence it is all speculative theory.

Conservation of Knowledge is your answer. Intelligence has always existed so there never was a time it did not exist. You could not have a universe without intelligence.

All scientific laws point to an intelligence of sorts to the universe. Without basic laws or rules there would be no universe. What is intelligence. What happens without gravity, electro magnetism, weak force, strong force without these fundamental forces there is no universe. One could point to them as the basic intelligence of the universe. Combine them into everything or one thing and that could easily be God.

The laws are descriptive not proscriptive. You are redefining god to be a set of laws written by man to describe how things work.

If your god is merely a set of descriptive laws then it isnot a god by most understandings of what a god is

Laws are not thinking intelligent entities. Laws do not create things, cause miracles, answer prayers, demand worship, etc.
 

Kirby D. P.

Member
Can you find a watch on the beach? Did the universe create it by shaking billions of years through determinism/causality or was it created by an intelligent being. Show me how to create a watch without intelligence and then you have something. The watch, the car, the computer, etc where all created by intelligence.

Actually, human intelligence is exquisitely explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection. Not all organisms are animals, not all animals have brains, not all animal brains are equally intelligent. But those species that demonstrate “higher” intelligence universally hale from an evolutionary lineage the shows progressive development to that intelligence.

We are extremely impressed with our own intelligence and the ability with which it endows us for watchmaking, etc. But intelligence, I would argue, is not nearly so special as we like to think it is.

Were I to find a watch on a beach, yeah, I’d say “this was probably made by an intelligence,” but, more specifically, I’d say, “this was probably made by a HUMAN.”

Are bees intelligent? No. Not, at least, in the context of this conversation and in the sense that Paley used it in his analogy. But if I had no idea of what bees or beehives were and I were walking along a beach and came across some honeycomb, I could reasonably say, “This might be the product of intelligence.” But I’d be wrong. A bee is not as (humanly) intelligent as me or my dog or even an octopus. But that doesn’t matter. Bees are bloody BRILLIANT at making honeycomb.

Now, you might argue that the bee’s brain was designed by some intelligence (let’s just call it God, cuz by any definition, that’s what it would be), but that does not remove the simplicity of the bee’s brain from constructing the relative perfection and complexity of honeycomb.

And let’s not even get into the apparent “complexity” and “intelligent design” of snowflakes.

My point is, when we say “intelligence,” we really mean “human-like intelligence.” And then, thinking our type of intelligence is the cat’s meow, some people think that we were designed, and the universe was designed, by some God with a super-dooper version of our own intelligence. Which is like elephants thinking that the universe must have been designed by some god with a super-dooper nose (which would make them Hindus, I think).

But, getting back to the original matter at hand, I submit that, for all their amazingness (and they are amazing), our brains and intelligence are merely naturally evolved features and any watches we make are artifacts of that evolution, like bees’ honeycombs.

People who claim the universe was designed by an intelligence by contrasting things designed by humans with things not designed by humans are making a logical error because ALL of those things must (supposedly) have been designed by the same intelligent being, God. If that is so, than neither you nor I, nor William Paley, nor anyone else has ever, EVER seen anything that is not intelligently designed. And, if that is the case, then we don’t know what lack of design looks like. We have nothing to compare design with. It’s a meaningless argument.

I’m not saying it proves there is no God. It’s just that it is utterly useless as evidence FOR God.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
The laws are descriptive not proscriptive. You are redefining god to be a set of laws written by man to describe how things work.

If your god is merely a set of descriptive laws then it isnot a god by most understandings of what a god is

Laws are not thinking intelligent entities. Laws do not create things, cause miracles, answer prayers, demand worship, etc.

First off intelligent design does not require a god of the Bible, Torah or Koran it just requires an intelligent guide. A universal intelligence would probably not be easily understandable. As I understand science we are just discovering what already exists Fundamental Laws were discovered not written by man. What created the Fundamental laws? Why do the Fundamental laws exist? Did they always exist?

Lastly you would not be able to define the universe intelligently unless it had intelligence. You keep ignoring the scientific theory for the conservation of Knowledge.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
The classic example arguing for intelligent design in the universe is William Paley’s “watchmaker” analogy. If, while roaming along a beach full of sand, rocks and random, chaotic waves, any reasonable person finds and picks up a pocket watch, he or she would understand that it was very different from the rest of the natural surroundings, that it was artificial, that it had purpose and that it was DESIGNED by an intelligence.

This analogy is used to argue for Intelligent Design in the establishing of the universe, in ranges all the way from a very subtle form (arranging the laws of nature by an intelligent creator) to a very literal and explicit form (that everything, including humans, were deliberately and specifically designed in moments of special creation).

I’m sure I can find writings from experts on both sides of the fence that answer the following questions. But I’m interested in opinions among us generally:

Paley contrasts the obvious design of the watch with the obvious non-design of the natural shoreline to argue positively that the universe at large is designed. But, if we take the situation literally (and I do understand, no analogy is meant to be), then the watch was designed by a being (a human) who itself was designed by a designer – the SAME designer that designed the sand, rocks and seawater. Hence, these other features are ALSO intelligently designed.

So, in real life, in cosmic terms, it seems impossible to distinguish between the design of a watch and the natural environment. If a creator made all in a moment (or six days) of special creation, then no aspect, no particle, no force, nor feature of that cosmos is NOT intelligently designed.

On what basis, then, can one claim that the universe IS intelligently designed since no one has ever experienced any phenomenon that is not intelligently designed? Doesn’t the universe appear to us in a way that can just as easily called “UN-intelligently” designed as “intelligently designed”?

Isn’t the question of intelligent design of a universe that contains everything meaningless and illogical?

That is a matter of perspective -and ours is one of insufficient data or insufficient processing thereof.

That which is was made of that which was.

God is said to be the one by whom all things consist -and would be the one who designed and made all -as well as that which all was made from.

Sufficient understanding of that which exists would reveal when certain events required decision, forethought, design, etc.

It might be found that "God" necessarily became more of what "he" was before the design and initiation of the universe was possible. In other words, as God has stated in scripture "Now I will be exalted. Now I will lift up myself", perhaps the first thing that necessarily happened was God making himself/becoming capable of designing and initiating a universe -which would also be himself rearranging himself/making himself more intricate and complex.

In yet other words -all things are created as God self-creates -being both the one that causes effect, and that which is affected.

Perhaps a "Creator" -a planning/arranging intelligence -necessarily self-evolved before the rest was possible.
Sufficient data would reveal such -so the question is not meaningless, though there may not really be any question about it -except due to our perspective of relative ignorance and newness.
 

Kirby D. P.

Member
Conservation of Knowledge is your answer. Intelligence has always existed so there never was a time it did not exist. You could not have a universe without intelligence.

All scientific laws point to an intelligence of sorts to the universe. Without basic laws or rules there would be no universe. What is intelligence. What happens without gravity, electro magnetism, weak force, strong force without these fundamental forces there is no universe. One could point to them as the basic intelligence of the universe. Combine them into everything or one thing and that could easily be God.


Milton is spot on. Scientific "laws" are just descriptions of certain ways in which the world behaves in consistent ways. To show the mistake in linking these consistencies to design by intelligence, if it were a simply universe with fewer describable laws, would that imply it had been made by a greater intelligence? Or would that be the case if it were a more complex universe with even more describable laws.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Milton is spot on. Scientific "laws" are just descriptions of certain ways in which the world behaves in consistent ways. To show the mistake in linking these consistencies to design by intelligence, if it were a simply universe with fewer describable laws, would that imply it had been made by a greater intelligence? Or would that be the case if it were a more complex universe with even more describable laws.

Does intelligence exist in this universe, can you describe the universe with intelligence, do the rules of the universe have a consistent behavior or do they act randomly. Did our intelligence randomly just occur and happen to mesh with everything already in the universe or has all this always existed.

If you can show me that intelligence is just a random happening and that the universal laws just randomly came about. Then fine the universe is a non-intelligent creation. Otherwise it was intelligently created with an intelligence we don't fully understand.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
So called inteligence is a human concept, it doesn't need to be located in a brain or some being called god. We as humans can never truly know how the univers works, and to realize this and also admitting it, is true inteligence, we don'teven know everything about our own mind and the way it works, so how on earth are we going to understand the cosmos and the way it works.

The ego wants to know all, even if it has to make something up such as relgioin to prove it knows all, this can also work in science, but science is more true in their knowledge than relgioin.

Its all fun to come up with possibilties but when we take our own opioions seriours and force them onto others that is when we become stupid and all inteligence fades away.
 
Last edited:

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Does intelligence exist in this universe, can you describe the universe with intelligence, do the rules of the universe have a consistent behavior or do they act randomly. Did our intelligence randomly just occur and happen to mesh with everything already in the universe or has all this always existed.

If you can show me that intelligence is just a random happening and that the universal laws just randomly came about. Then fine the universe is a non-intelligent creation. Otherwise it was intelligently created with an intelligence we don't fully understand.
Your post led me to think about a question. What about the universe being designed? If it's designed by an intelligence, can the universe be random? What would be the criticism of a non-random (intelligently designed) universe that is producing life on its own because it's designed that way? Natural Evolution (through natural processes) might be exactly what the intelligent creator wanted from the beginning and we're just here arguing about what kind of creator there is and what his/her/its intentions were.

And furthermore, if the universe points to an intelligent creator because it's so ordered and intelligently designed, what about the creator him/her/itself? Would that being also be intelligent and ordered?

Put it this way:
p1) Anything that looks intelligently designed is designed by something/someone intelligent
p2) The universe looks intelligently designed
c) The universe is designed by something/someone intelligent

But then:
p1) Anything that looks intelligently designed is designed by something/someone intelligent
p2) The intelligent something/someone also looks intelligently designed
c) The intelligent designer was designed by something/someone intelligent.

My point is, we can't really draw a conclusion however much this universe looks designed or intelligent that there must be an intelligence behind it. There might be, but the reasoning (at least formulated this way) doesn't hold.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
First off intelligent design does not require a god of the Bible, Torah or Koran it just requires an intelligent guide. A universal intelligence would probably not be easily understandable. As I understand science we are just discovering what already exists Fundamental Laws were discovered not written by man. What created the Fundamental laws? Why do the Fundamental laws exist? To describe the way matter and energy work. Did they always exist? The properties of matter as we know them have apparently existed since shortly after the Big Bang. We wrote the laws to describe those properties. But we are just doing semantics here....you can say your god created the properties, and demonstrate how you know this and we can go from there.

Lastly you would not be able to define the universe intelligently unless it had intelligence. Why??? You keep ignoring the scientific (?)theory for the conservation of Knowledge.

Dembski's concept has been debunked, it seems. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf

Also, I think I conflated your comments with another poster's somewhere along the line......I'll sort it out.
 
Top