Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[1robin]

I've listened to them pretty much every evening for the past 2 years. Youtube is awesome, and debates areally great for pre-bed jitters.

Can you specify where I can find what you are talking about, because I have not seen them do this at all in the many videos I've watched.

Please see my post to MOR #399 as I have clarified this claim to make it more relevant and not have me spending hours looking up interviews, watching documentaries, and reading theoretical science books. But here are a few examples anyway.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html

 

[viole]

Thank you for attempting to correct me but I think this is going to come down to a semantic splitting of hairs. When "in all possible universes" is said it is meant to be a data set that includes any universe that may logically exist. That is exactly what you would use to account for the idea of multiverses because if you open the door to an additional hypothetical universe you have to include all possible universes. Can you find any regular use of the term "in all possible universes" in philosophy before about 200 years ago? The only one I found was by St Anselm almost in anticipation of what is not occuring.

In fact type in (in all possible universes philosophic definition) and the first link you will see is too a Wiki page on Multiverses.

If you look up this link to Stanford Encyclopedia, you will see an non-theist tear apart the multiverse theory in argument after argument and the article and comments below include the phrase "in all possible universes" 5 times interchangeably with multiverse. As intelligent as you are I am sure you have found some negligible difference between the two, but as desperate as you sometimes seem I imagine that difference is vanishingly negligible for this context.

Emh, no.

The set of possible universes that can possibly exist is a superset, not necessary equivalent, to the set of universes that can nomologically exist. It is probably much vaster. If you can nomologically exist, then you necessarily can logically exist. The contrary is not true.

If we find out that, nomologically, only one Universe can exist, that does not reduce the size of logically possible Universes and the coherence of any discussion about them.

I make the assumption here that you understand the difference between logical and nomological propositions.

By the way. Your friend Vilenkin expects, and he wrote a book about it, an enormous multitude of, nomologicallly coherent, Universes.

Do you think his physics is wrong?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Little correction, if I may. The philosophical expression, as it is used in modal logic, "in all possible Universes" has nothing to do with the physical existence of many Universes.

Ciao

- viole

Oh well that makes this easy. I never confined the term to or mentioned it's use in modal logic. I meant it's casual use. I did not even know it had an application specifically to modal logic. Modal logic is something that took me a decade to make any breakthrough in. I just could not get this necessary and contingent being stuff but one day at least that part resonated with me and a whole category of debate now made since which was a complete mystery beforehand, but I am not in any respects competent in modal logic but the man who practically established it's modern format is an observant Jew with one of the highest IQ's in the world. I think his name is Kripke. I have tried reading his stuff and maybe comprehend 10%. However modal logic was not the context I used the term in. All possible universes is a part of modern common language. It composes a data set of unknown quantity of all universes that are logically possible.

 

[1robin]

Emh, no.

The set of possible universes that can possibly exist is a superset, not necessary equivalent, to the set of universes that can nomologically exist. It is probably much vaster. If you can nomologically exist, then you necessarily can logically exist. The contrary is not true.

I do not think the distinction necessary here. We are talking about things we have no evidence of and I really cannot see how anyone can say what physical or mathematic systems limit or apply to other universes. In fact the only limiting factor I can think of for multiverses would be a infinite set. According to my Hero of philosophy Ravi Zacharias, Malcolm Muggeridge and your friend and mine were the two greatest wordsmiths that ever lived. I would throw in Lincoln as well. Regardless Muggeridge once said:

“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society

You must admit agree or not that guy could put sentences together.

If we find out that, nomologically, only one Universe can exist, that does not reduce the size of logically possible Universes and the coherence of any discussion about them.

I am not discussing the probability of more than one universe. I am talking about only having evidence of one universe. But only the discussion of possible universes if possible is relevant. To discuss square circles may be possible but it is meaningless.

I make the assumption here that you understand the difference between logical and nomological propositions.

I would say the difference is between acknowledging a brute fact that is not understandable but still true, and a truth that follows along with our rational intuitions gained by investigation.

By the way. Your friend Vilenkin expects, and he wrote a book about it, an enormous multitude of, nomologicallly coherent, Universes.

That would I think both be a case of what Malcolm was speaking of and even if not something I would not be capable of understanding enough of to be a meaningful use of my time.

Do you think his physics is wrong?

I have never seen his physics for these other universes by I do not believe he has the capability to develop any physics what so ever about any other universe. I am not a Velinkinite. I use him for what he is immensely qualified to speak upon. Other universes would not be among them IMO. I told you about the final faculty lecture I went to where the same scientists in some cases (and these are heavyweights, this was where Von Braun worked) explained that our own universe contradicted it's self. That was the end of a long trip that led from being mesmerized by these theoretical guys to being felt cheated and left without any credibility for what they do. I think I probably overly disregard them because of the momentum gained by the how high the fall started from but I don't think I think too low of them by a wide margin. They actually left me so disaffected I lost any interest in even abstract science with the except of what is intuitive. You still seem to be on the peek I fell from, and what you say sounds impressive even if at it's core it is of little practical value.

You would make one formable Apologist if you would just come over to the light side of the force.

You ever seen that family guy episode about star wars where Darth Vader (Stewie) told Luke (Chris) "he should come over to the back side of the force, then said he meant dark side, it had been a long day".

I am sure I have asked before but if you don't mind what did you say you do for a living?

 

[1robin]

Guys and gals let me remind you we began this discussion given the five reliable historical events that the majority of NT historians agree took place (among many I did not mention), and what the best explanation is. Now look at where we wound up. Every practical discussion about faith with intelligent atheists winds up in theoretical and mostly unknowable physics and philosophy. Why is that?

 

[leibowde84]

Please see my post to MOR #399 as I have clarified this claim to make it more relevant and not have me spending hours looking up interviews, watching documentaries, and reading theoretical science books. But here are a few examples anyway.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html

These don't speak to multiverses as a fact at all. It mentions evidence being found that supports it, but that doesn't mean it is more than a hypothesis.

 

[leibowde84]

Please see my post to MOR #399 as I have clarified this claim to make it more relevant and not have me spending hours looking up interviews, watching documentaries, and reading theoretical science books. But here are a few examples anyway.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html

Are you saying that presenting a hypothesis is the same as claiming to state fact?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't buy the multiple similar universe idea with other "me"s, etc. (as in the tv show sliders) -but like to think about multiple singularities resulting in multiple universes.

But do you claim such as fact? I would assume not.

 

[Etritonakin]

But do you claim such as fact? I would assume not.

No. One universe is big enough for me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Your the first fan of that guy I have ever met, though I am sure he has many. He did grow on me a little bit when he appeared on big bang theory. This is getting a little off topic and would require me to go di through debates, interviews, and quotes for hours and would serve little purpose. Let me instead change my claim to something much more relevant. Theoretical scientists and people who hold them in high esteem like I used to and you apparently still do use the counter claim to a universe ex-nihilo with the possibility of multi-verses. In other words it seems to be used in a way that cancels out having to explain the facts with a cause that has no evidence. It has many more problems that like:

For example:
1. More universes increases the likelihood that in one there is an omniscient God like being and being omniscient means he would exist in all universes. So more universes higher likelihood of God.
2. We only have evidence of a universe from nothing and barely understand any of it's earliest events. In fact all known science completely breaks down before 1 x 10-47 seconds. So that is an event with a trillion pieces of empirical evidence which has no known solution. And the fact that nothing stands in no causal relationship with anything makes a miraculous cause more likely than a natural one. It is not that the evidence for the miraculous (meaning merely non-traditional natural law) is better than some weak natural explanation. It is that at this time it does not even seem like a natural explanation is possible. Nothing comes from nothing, an infinite regression of causation is impossible, natural infinites are impossible. It does not appear the natural explanation team even showed up for the contest or could.
3. Multi-universes are not explanations for this universe anyway. It would be what caused all the universes. However that just kicks the cane down the road and leaves you with the same what caused whatever exists for the same reasons I listed above, plus the dozens I didn't.


So even if Leibniz rode a horse and had a powdered wig, science has done nothing to answer his question, "Why does anything exist". The answer given is Genesis no matter how weak you may claim it to be is far better that what does not even seem to be possible, a natural explanation.

So MOR and Leibowde84 let me please clarify my claim so that I may save time and it become far more relevant so it would suit the purpose I originally brought it up for instead of an off ramp argument over quotes.

Meh. The main problem with the multiverse theory is that there is no hard evidence. Many of the theoretical fields and particle science that is slowly becoming far less theoretical (which is actually pretty amazing how well they have managed to predict the very essences of the universe out of sheer math and 1940's technology) seems to indicate that not only is the multiverse possible but quite possibly necessary. But that is beside the point. A further problem with the multiverse is that there is next to no way to study or verify it even if it is correct. At best it is a highly vauge explanation of "what could be" behind the real of our universe. That is all it is. I think it has gotten a lot of hype but meh.

The only other thing I would like to mention in your post is the probability of god. God and the concept of god is usually free from probability. Either god exists or he doesn't. Having more universes wouldn't increase a non-existent chance. Or either god is omnipotent and he exists in all universes. Maybe all universes have their own god and there is a supreme god above all of them that is god of the multiverse. Who knows. Just know that adding more universes within a multiverse isn't increasing the odds of a god existing in one of them.

 

[viole]

I do not think the distinction necessary here. We are talking about things we have no evidence of and I really cannot see how anyone can say what physical or mathematic systems limit or apply to other universes. In fact the only limiting factor I can think of for multiverses would be a infinite set. According to my Hero of philosophy Ravi Zacharias, Malcolm Muggeridge and your friend and mine were the two greatest wordsmiths that ever lived. I would throw in Lincoln as well. Regardless Muggeridge once said:

“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society

You must admit agree or not that guy could put sentences together.

I am not discussing the probability of more than one universe. I am talking about only having evidence of one universe. But only the discussion of possible universes if possible is relevant. To discuss square circles may be possible but it is meaningless.

The irony of this is that modal logic (based on all possible universes, contingency, necessity, etc) is the basis of the most powerful argument for God I am aware of. Namely the modal version of the Leibnitzian cosmological argument. Kalam is ridicolously easy in comparison. That was the hardest I ever saw for me to refute. It took me at least several weeks to get a crash course in modal logic and debate on another forum and I am not sure who won. I won the easy part, but the important part was a tie, I guess.

I have never seen his physics for these other universes by I do not believe he has the capability to develop any physics what so ever about any other universe. I am not a Velinkinite. I use him for what he is immensely qualified to speak upon. Other universes would not be among them IMO.

It is the same physics he used to prove that our Universe had a "beginning". I sense a bit of special pleading here

I told you about the final faculty lecture I went to where the same scientists in some cases (and these are heavyweights, this was where Von Braun worked) explained that our own universe contradicted it's self. That was the end of a long trip that led from being mesmerized by these theoretical guys to being felt cheated and left without any credibility for what they do. I think I probably overly disregard them because of the momentum gained by the how high the fall started from but I don't think I think too low of them by a wide margin. They actually left me so disaffected I lost any interest in even abstract science with the except of what is intuitive. You still seem to be on the peek I fell from, and what you say sounds impressive even if at it's core it is of little practical value.

That is dangerous. What we know today cannot possibly be supported by human intuition. The experiments show things that lead to theories, very effective ones, that we cannot possibly visualize. But this is not because scientists are getting crazy, speculative or nature is weird. It is because our natural intuition evolved to be effective in the middle world. The world where predators do not run close to the speed of light and food is vastly bigger than an electron.

You would make one formable Apologist if you would just come over to the light side of the force.

Thanks. I like to think I was one before undoing my newest birth. As concerns your offer to rejoin the light side of the force, I have to respectfully decline. I prefer the heavy side thereof.

You ever seen that family guy episode about star wars where Darth Vader (Stewie) told Luke (Chris) "he should come over to the back side of the force, then said he meant dark side, it had been a long day".

I am sure I have asked before but if you don't mind what did you say you do for a living?

I am a mathematician. Helping sometimes those poor physicists and engineers with their natural suboptimal mathematical skills, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

These don't speak to multiverses as a fact at all. It mentions evidence being found that supports it, but that doesn't mean it is more than a hypothesis.

I have to disagree. I think finding evidence for something is what I said it was. I again remind I did not insist they say it is a fact. I said they give the impression it is a explanation with enough weight behind it as to counter the one universe we do actually have evidence for. Your carrying common language use way too far and I have tried to explain that inn detail, draw your attention to it, and re-clarify it into a much more relevant form.

 

[1robin]

Are you saying that presenting a hypothesis is the same as claiming to state fact?

With all due respect (if you say that, it excuses anything you say afterwards in theory). Your over estimating what I claimed. Again I remind you I have spent quite a bit of time redefining the claim in a context that is far more appropriate to this discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

I have to disagree. I think finding evidence for something is what I said it was. I again remind I did not insist they say it is a fact. I said they give the impression it is a explanation with enough weight behind it as to counter the one universe we do actually have evidence for. Your carrying common language use way too far and I have tried to explain that inn detail, draw your attention to it, and re-clarify it into a much more relevant form.

I think it is absurd to accuse them of stating the hypothesis as fact, as thy don't give that impression at all. They use words like "think", and constantly refer to the fact that it is an untested hypothesis.

 

[leibowde84]

With all due respect (if you say that, it excuses anything you say afterwards in theory). Your over estimating what I claimed. Again I remind you I have spent quite a bit of time redefining the claim in a context that is far more appropriate to this discussion.

I understand, but you still haven't pointed to anything that gives the impression that the multiverse hypothesis is fact. Evidence that supports it doesn't come close to doing this. There is far too much more testing required for any kind of claim of it being a scientific theory, much less scientific fact.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Meh. The main problem with the multiverse theory is that there is no hard evidence. Many of the theoretical fields and particle science that is slowly becoming far less theoretical (which is actually pretty amazing how well they have managed to predict the very essences of the universe out of sheer math and 1940's technology) seems to indicate that not only is the multiverse possible but quite possibly necessary. But that is beside the point. A further problem with the multiverse is that there is next to no way to study or verify it even if it is correct. At best it is a highly vauge explanation of "what could be" behind the real of our universe. That is all it is. I think it has gotten a lot of hype but meh.

The only other thing I would like to mention in your post is the probability of god. God and the concept of god is usually free from probability. Either god exists or he doesn't. Having more universes wouldn't increase a non-existent chance. Or either god is omnipotent and he exists in all universes. Maybe all universes have their own god and there is a supreme god above all of them that is god of the multiverse. Who knows. Just know that adding more universes within a multiverse isn't increasing the odds of a god existing in one of them.

If I were asked to account for the creation of a 747, while forbidding the involvement of creative intelligence at any stage- I might be forced to conclude that it always existed and therefore required no creation at all.
Once this was debunked, I might propose that it was a self contained, self perpetuating cyclical system- so it still wasn't really created

Once this was debunked, all I would be left with is: an invisible infinite probability machine created it accidentally, among an infinite number of other random things

that pretty much sums up atheist cosmogony over the last 100 years does it not?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I were asked to account for the creation of a 747, while forbidding the involvement of creative intelligence at any stage- I might be forced to conclude that it always existed and therefore required no creation at all.
Once this was debunked, I might propose that it was a self contained, self perpetuating cyclical system- so it still wasn't really created

Once this was debunked, all I would be left with is: an invisible infinite probability machine created it accidentally, among an infinite number of other random things

that pretty much sums up atheist cosmogony over the last 100 years does it not?

Nope. Could not be more wrong from start to finish.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. Could not be more wrong from start to finish.

hmm, another well thought out substantive rebuttal, I must ponder it further

 

[Monk Of Reason]

hmm, another well thought out substantive rebuttal, I must ponder it further

I would hope you do. I do hope you also notice a slow but steady decline in the amount of detail I respond to you with. It is mainly because I find that the effort that I put into discussing things with you and a few other members are not at all equal to the amount of energy you use simply to disregard facts that I brought up. When I am in a more energetic mood I think that I will give more in depth responses.

But since you asked lets point out why I say it was wrong from start to finish.

First lets look at your example. A 747. You take this example that we know full well is created and doesn't exists in nature all by its lonesome. So obviously its best explanation for how it exists is how we create it. Why would we ever bar the argument of creation for it? If one was to point out why it was created do you know what the arguments would be? Would they list the complexity or the design elements? No. They would show us the factories where they were built. They would show us the schematics of how it was built. They would look at the serial numbers and show us what they mean. They would point out that nothing like this exists in nature.

None of these same arguments are applicable to the universe. Can we see where the universe was created? Can you point out how it was made? Can you show me the evidence of where someone created this and what a non-designed universe would look like in contrast? You cannot make the leap that "everything is designed" without first having a contrast of what non-design would look like. Furthermore even if you did have this theoretical springboard it is nothing but theory until you find evidence.

There is no atheist cosmology. I have told you that a million times over yet you keep saying it as if it wasn't as meaningless as the first time you said it. There are physics theories about cosmology that are based on the evidence and what we know. Those theories usually don't include god because there is no basis for inclusion. God is a barred answer. God can be the answer. We need evidence of god however before that is possible. If you want god in science then find the scientific evidence for god. If it isn't there then it doesn't belong in science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would hope you do. I do hope you also notice a slow but steady decline in the amount of detail I respond to you with. It is mainly because I find that the effort that I put into discussing things with you and a few other members are not at all equal to the amount of energy you use simply to disregard facts that I brought up. When I am in a more energetic mood I think that I will give more in depth responses.

But since you asked lets point out why I say it was wrong from start to finish.

First lets look at your example. A 747. You take this example that we know full well is created and doesn't exists in nature all by its lonesome. So obviously its best explanation for how it exists is how we create it. Why would we ever bar the argument of creation for it? If one was to point out why it was created do you know what the arguments would be? Would they list the complexity or the design elements? No. They would show us the factories where they were built. They would show us the schematics of how it was built. They would look at the serial numbers and show us what they mean. They would point out that nothing like this exists in nature.

None of these same arguments are applicable to the universe. Can we see where the universe was created? Can you point out how it was made? Can you show me the evidence of where someone created this and what a non-designed universe would look like in contrast? You cannot make the leap that "everything is designed" without first having a contrast of what non-design would look like. Furthermore even if you did have this theoretical springboard it is nothing but theory until you find evidence.

There is no atheist cosmology. I have told you that a million times over yet you keep saying it as if it wasn't as meaningless as the first time you said it. There are physics theories about cosmology that are based on the evidence and what we know. Those theories usually don't include god because there is no basis for inclusion. God is a barred answer. God can be the answer. We need evidence of god however before that is possible. If you want god in science then find the scientific evidence for god. If it isn't there then it doesn't belong in science.

Nope, totally wrong