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

[Milton Platt]

I have been thinking about this recently -and the following are simply some things I was pondering.....

I do not see that what we call the big bang could have been the beginning of absolutely everything.
It must have had an extremely complex make-up (if essentially self-contained and self-extracting) or processing ability (if it could be likened to a seed which arranged things into something else) at that point in order to become the universe, life, ourselves, etc...

It does not seem to me to be simple enough to be the very beginning of all things.

If the present is a more complex arrangement than (or of) the past (big bang becoming elements, etc., elements becoming life, etc...), then it seems to me that much preceded the big bang.

If some time in the past things were as simple as possible, what are the most basic and simple things which exist -what are the ones and zeros of reality, if you will -and how did they becoming increasingly ordered, complex -and lead to us?

From our perspective, it is understandable to believe that we did not require a creator -because it may be that the emergence of life was inevitable after the big bang -the inanimate preceded the animate, or whatever....

...but if the big bang was preceded by something which caused it to become the singularity which would produce our universe and all therein....

perhaps the first thing that necessarily existed or came to exist -by arrangement or rearrangement of the simplest things -was self-awareness and increasing creativity?

What if that which existed initially could not have become what it now is without first being or becoming able to say "I AM"?

Perhaps that was necessary before anything became anything else.

If we can believe that an arrangement of stardust can eventually say "I AM" -then why not an arrangement of that which preceded the stars or the big bang which caused the stars?

If we can know that something was designed by man by comparing it to nature, perhaps we can know that everything was designed by comparing it to absolute simplicity.
We know everything has design of sorts -but perhaps it truly could not have become that way without a self-awareness, and that of which to be aware and act upon, self-evolving in tandem....
I and AM becoming increasingly complex.

That is a lot to unpack, but let me ask a couple of questions

What is "absolute simplicity" exactly?

Why exactly ( logically?) would the first things that would come into existence be something that nature tells us comes from a complex living organ? Why would not the simplist thing be energy and particles? There are theories about how particles, then atoms could form as things cooled and wxpanded. Can you come up with a hypothesis for how awareness occured before or during the big bang? Since as far as we can tell, matter and energy is not currently self aware, why would it have been then and why is there no evidence for it now?

Just asking

 

[Etritonakin]

That is a lot to unpack, but let me ask a couple of questions

What is "absolute simplicity" exactly?

Why exactly ( logically?) would the first things that would come into existence be something that nature tells us comes from a complex living organ? Why would not the simplist thing be energy and particles? There are theories about how particles, then atoms could form as things cooled and wxpanded. Can you come up with a hypothesis for how awareness occured before or during the big bang? Since as far as we can tell, matter and energy is not currently self aware, why would it have been then and why is there no evidence for it now?

Just asking

The way I see it... matter, energy, awareness, self-awareness, etc... are all aspects of the same overall thing -just as evolution and design are essentially parts of the same whole.

The complex living organ came from nature -but we do not know the nature of nature.

Even what we do know of it does not tell us self-awareness and creativity simply pop out of a complex living organ which just happens to exist -it tells us it began -as far as we know -from a singularity -perhaps well before that.

Later, there was the first thing that we would define as life -and things became increasingly complex -leading to the complex organ, etc....

It is what comes from that complex living organ that suggests similar things come from similar arrangements -our own creative acts.

The complex living organ began as the most simple life -until it became aware -then self-aware -and eventually creative.

The first things I am considering would be before the singularity -and I am not saying that they are not the same stuff that became the energy and particles we know, but our own energy, particles, atoms, whatever are intertwined with our awareness and self-awareness. Some initial thing which could act upon another initial thing and get some sort of response which would cause a slightly different action from the first thing, etc., etc. I'm still struggling with atoms -so I have no real suggestions here.

We are aware and self-aware, but we are also made of the same stuff of which we can be aware -aware that our self is made of that stuff. We are self-aware and aware due to a specific arrangement of that stuff.

We see that the complex organ came from the elements, etc. -which came from the big bang -which came from who knows what?

We once thought atoms were the smallest things -then we found subatomic particles, etc. -and we do not know if there is some point when it becomes irreducible.

I was considering the possibility that whatever stuff was initially was similarly intertwined with awareness, self-awareness, etc. -and could not have reached the present state without first being aware and self-aware.

Perhaps that was necessary to initially produce the complexity we see -or to reproduce itself in us.

We marvel at our own feats of creativity -things which would not possibly exist without it -yet attribute far more complex and functional things to a "nature" without creativity.

We know that "nature" created everything -even essentially created itself as it went along -the only question is whether or not it is aware that it did so -and at what point awareness and self-awareness were necessary to have done so.

Awareness begins with simple interactions -slightly more complex interactions lead to simple self-awareness, self-arrangement, so on and so forth.....

Just some thoughts

 

[Milton Platt]

The way I see it... matter, energy, awareness, self-awareness, etc... are all aspects of the same overall thing -just as evolution and design are essentially parts of the same whole.

The complex living organ came from nature -but we do not know the nature of nature.

Even what we do know of it does not tell us self-awareness and creativity simply pop out of a complex living organ which just happens to exist -it tells us it began -as far as we know -from a singularity -perhaps well before that.

Later, there was the first thing that we would define as life -and things became increasingly complex -leading to the complex organ, etc....

It is what comes from that complex living organ that suggests similar things come from similar arrangements -our own creative acts.

The complex living organ began as the most simple life -until it became aware -then self-aware -and eventually creative.

The first things I am considering would be before the singularity -and I am not saying that they are not the same stuff that became the energy and particles we know, but our own energy, particles, atoms, whatever are intertwined with our awareness and self-awareness. Some initial thing which could act upon another initial thing and get some sort of response which would cause a slightly different action from the first thing, etc., etc. I'm still struggling with atoms -so I have no real suggestions here.

We are aware and self-aware, but we are also made of the same stuff of which we can be aware -aware that our self is made of that stuff. We are self-aware and aware due to a specific arrangement of that stuff.

We see that the complex organ came from the elements, etc. -which came from the big bang -which came from who knows what?

We once thought atoms were the smallest things -then we found subatomic particles, etc. -and we do not know if there is some point when it becomes irreducible.

I was considering the possibility that whatever stuff was initially was similarly intertwined with awareness, self-awareness, etc. -and could not have reached the present state without first being aware and self-aware.

Perhaps that was necessary to initially produce the complexity we see -or to reproduce itself in us.

We marvel at our own feats of creativity -things which would not possibly exist without it -yet attribute far more complex and functional things to a "nature" without creativity.

We know that "nature" created everything -even essentially created itself as it went along -the only question is whether or not it is aware that it did so -and at what point awareness and self-awareness were necessary to have done so.

Awareness begins with simple interactions -slightly more complex interactions lead to simple self-awareness, self-arrangement, so on and so forth.....

Just some thoughts

Okay, I know we are just discussing your thoughts, so I want to keep it light, but.....

Why would you assume awareness was intertwined with anything, or that it even existed at that point? How do you logically get to the conclusion that awareness is something other than the product of a living organism? That would have to mean that all matter, down to sub atomic particles would be "aware" which would require consciousness. There is nothing to support this contention. We do not even know the nature of the simgularity at all, since physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.

What would the matter and/ or energy have been aware of???

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Okay, I know we are just discussing your thoughts, so I want to keep it light, but.....

Why would you assume awareness was intertwined with anything, or that it even existed at that point? How do you logically get to the conclusion that awareness is something other than the product of a living organism? That would have to mean that all matter, down to sub atomic particles would be "aware" which would require consciousness. There is nothing to support this contention. We do not even know the nature of the simgularity at all, since physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.

What would the matter and/ or energy have been aware of???

This gets to the infinite regression paradox unique to atheism; where the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws

awareness, purpose, creative intelligence, in a sense is the only 'supernatural' phenomena we know- in being able to create what nature alone never can. Arguably the only way anything can ever truly be created, originated, as opposed to being bound to an infinite chain of automated cause and effect.

 

[Etritonakin]

Okay, I know we are just discussing your thoughts, so I want to keep it light, but.....

Why would you assume awareness was intertwined with anything, or that it even existed at that point? How do you logically get to the conclusion that awareness is something other than the product of a living organism? That would have to mean that all matter, down to sub atomic particles would be "aware" which would require consciousness. There is nothing to support this contention. We do not even know the nature of the simgularity at all, since physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.

What would the matter and/ or energy have been aware of???

We plainly see that awareness exists now -along with everything. At the very least -from our perspective -the potential for our kind of awareness has always existed.

What is awareness, though, at its core? If I build a circuit which outputs a green light when light is present, and a red light when light is not present (not able to sense its own light output) -it is somewhat aware, and that would be based on some part of the circuit reacting one way to light and one way to the absence of light. Its awareness would be based on interaction -one thing acting upon another to cause some change. If the circuit were not present, that part would still react the same way to light, and the same way to the absence of light. That is the basis for logic -it is essentially a simple logic gate. Higher logic would come by linking that logic gate in and/or to various other configurations, gates, or configuration of gates.

The same principle applies to our complex brains. Its complexity is multiple simplicity in various arrangements.

However, at our level, that part (perhaps some element, compound, etc.) of the circuit would actually be a higher logic than that of which it was composed -but that of which it was composed could also similarly be configured -similar to various higher computer codes being based on a one or zero, 5 or 0 volts, etc...

That which was initially -the most simple thing or things -would therefore become more aware as it made of itself more of which to be aware -perhaps beginning with the most simple awareness which could then compound.
It would be the "real" one and zero -or whatever -which had the potential to become what it now is. We think of ones and zeros as the most basic things on computing -but those ones and zeros are produced by vary complex things. The initial one and zero -or whatever else exists when all is no longer reducible -would simply be.

Some believe the big bang was the beginning of time -and it was certainly the beginning of universal time -but if something preceded it, it would have an external time reference.
Time itself would begin at the first , most simple, action and reaction -if there was a first -and that action and interaction would also be the most basic logic -the most basic awareness.
That awareness could be said to be eternal, as time did not exist before it -it was without beginning of days or end of life, without father or mother, etc... It could be said to be that which has always existed and that by which all things consist.

Self-awareness is also a complex configuration of simple awareness and would change as the self changed -and as the self changed itself.

We are aware of ourselves -but when we first look into a mirror, we become more aware of ourselves -then as we change and change ourselves, our awareness of ourselves changes.

Mirrors and reflections are interactions -and are similar to simple awareness.

Again -just some thoughts

 

[Milton Platt]

This gets to the infinite regression paradox unique to atheism; where the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws

awareness, purpose, creative intelligence, in a sense is the only 'supernatural' phenomena we know- in being able to create what nature alone never can. Arguably the only way anything can ever truly be created, originated, as opposed to being bound to an infinite chain of automated cause and effect.

There is no infinite regression or anything else inherent in a lack of belief in a supernatural being the proponents of which will contend has itself an infinite past and an infinite future.

I have no idea at all what conditions were at the singularity, and no concepts of what was or was not in existence before that, although if time as we understand it began at that point, was there a before in any understandable sense of the word?
. Further, I do not hold opinions on the possibility of an infinite future, unlike most theist. If a future can be infinite, then the past can be as well.

How can you hold that in a situation we can have no knowledge of (before the beginning of time and space as we understand it) and before matter as we know it, you can determine what the laws of physics must be?
We already know the laws of physics break down as we approach the singularity.

Awareness, creativity and sense of purpose come from the actions of natural organic brains, therefore are not supernatural in origin.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no infinite regression or anything else inherent in a lack of belief in a supernatural being the proponents of which will contend has itself an infinite past and an infinite future.

I have no idea at all what conditions were at the singularity, and no concepts of what was or was not in existence before that, although if time as we understand it began at that point, was there a before in any understandable sense of the word?
. Further, I do not hold opinions on the possibility of an infinite future, unlike most theist. If a future can be infinite, then the past can be as well.

How can you hold that in a situation we can have no knowledge of (before the beginning of time and space as we understand it) and before matter as we know it, you can determine what the laws of physics must be?
We already know the laws of physics break down as we approach the singularity.

Yes, we know that time, as we know it, is a construct within our universe right?, which had a specific beginning in the primeval atom - as the priest Lemaitre coined it. A concept once described as 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang' by atheists who preferred static/ eternal models at the time. (no creation = no creator)

So whether the creator was intelligent and purposeful or blind and spontaneous, by definition this creator transcended time as we know it, so this is a wash yes?

but what's not even is the capacity for creative intelligence v blind chance to truly create anything, let alone everything we see around us

 

[Milton Platt]

We plainly see that awareness exists now -along with everything. At the very least -from our perspective -the potential for our kind of awareness has always existed.

What is awareness, though, at its core? If I build a circuit which outputs a green light when light is present, and a red light when light is not present (not able to sense its own light output) -it is somewhat aware, and that would be based on some part of the circuit reacting one way to light and one way to the absence of light. Its awareness would be based on interaction -one thing acting upon another to cause some change. If the circuit were not present, that part would still react the same way to light, and the same way to the absence of light. That is the basis for logic -it is essentially a simple logic gate. Higher logic would come by linking that logic gate in and/or to various other configurations, gates, or configuration of gates.

The same principle applies to our complex brains. Its complexity is multiple simplicity in various arrangements.

However, at our level, that part (perhaps some element, compound, etc.) of the circuit would actually be a higher logic than that of which it was composed -but that of which it was composed could also similarly be configured -similar to various higher computer codes being based on a one or zero, 5 or 0 volts, etc...

That which was initially -the most simple thing or things -would therefore become more aware as it made of itself more of which to be aware -perhaps beginning with the most simple awareness which could then compound.
It would be the "real" one and zero -or whatever -which had the potential to become what it now is. We think of ones and zeros as the most basic things on computing -but those ones and zeros are produced by vary complex things. The initial one and zero -or whatever else exists when all is no longer reducible -would simply be.

Some believe the big bang was the beginning of time -and it was certainly the beginning of universal time -but if something preceded it, it would have an external time reference.
Time itself would begin at the first , most simple, action and reaction -if there was a first -and that action and interaction would also be the most basic logic -the most basic awareness.
That awareness could be said to be eternal, as time did not exist before it -it was without beginning of days or end of life, without father or mother, etc... It could be said to be that which has always existed and that by which all things consist.

Self-awareness is also a complex configuration of simple awareness and would change as the self changed -and as the self changed itself.

We are aware of ourselves -but when we first look into a mirror, we become more aware of ourselves -then as we change and change ourselves, our awareness of ourselves changes.

Mirrors and reflections are interactions -and are similar to simple awareness.

Again -just some thoughts

We have no good evidence to lead us to think awareness exists in any other way that we can understand it now...that is as the result of a living being being aware through it's senses.

The circuit would depend entirely upon known physical laws concerning electricity, matter, and light, and would be a gross catagory error to compare to awareness as anyone would reasonably define it. Design one which depends on none of these things and you have my attention.
Light bouncing off of a reflective surface is not awareness. Does absorbed light then equate in your mind to non-awareness.? Again...catagory error.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, we know that time, as we know it, is a construct within our universe right?, which had a specific beginning in the primeval atom - as the priest Lemaitre coined it. A concept once described as 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'big bang' by atheists who preferred static/ eternal models at the time. (no creation = no creator)

So whether the creator was intelligent and purposeful or blind and spontaneous, by definition this creator transcended time as we know it, so this is a wash yes?

but what's not even is the capacity for creative intelligence v blind chance to truly create anything, let alone everything we see around us

I do not know what was before (if I may use that word for lack of better) the singularity. I do not care for the word "creator" because it carries too much theological baggage. I an utterly without knowledge about anything beyond the singularity (and certainly wouldn't boast I know much about even that. Neither does anyone else. Anything said by anyone about the subject is flately making stuff up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do not know what was before (if I may use that word for lack of better) the singularity. I do not care for the word "creator" because it carries too much theological baggage. I an utterly without knowledge about anything beyond the singularity (and certainly wouldn't boast I know much about even that. Neither does anyone else. Anything said by anyone about the subject is flately making stuff up.

Yet you assume some sort of naturalistic explanation- based on what?

I agree we have no empirical evidence either way, we're all taking our best guess..

But as with the 10 royal flushes, I would suspect cheating even though I had no direct evidence of it, because of the probabilities

 

[leibowde84]

Yet you assume some sort of naturalistic explanation- based on what?

I agree we have no empirical evidence either way, we're all taking our best guess..

But as with the 10 royal flushes, I would suspect cheating even though I had no direct evidence of it, because of the probabilities

The chances of someone getting a 10th royal flush is exactly the same as getting the first one. Just like if we flipped a coin 100 times, and it came up heads 99 times in a row. The chances it will come up heads again is still 50/50.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The chances of someone getting a 10th royal flush is exactly the same as getting the first one. Just like if we flipped a coin 100 times, and it came up heads 99 times in a row. The chances it will come up heads again is still 50/50.

So if you saw a coin being flipped 99 times and it comes up heads every single time..., you wouldn't suspect it was a trick coin?! how many flips would it take?

 

[leibowde84]

So if you saw a coin being flipped 99 times and it comes up heads every single time..., you wouldn't suspect it was a trick coin?! how many flips would it take?

If a coin was flipped 1 trillion times, it would come as no surprise that it came up heads 99 times in a row, maybe even more than once.

 

[viole]

So if you saw a coin being flipped 99 times and it comes up heads every single time..., you wouldn't suspect it was a trick coin?! how many flips would it take?

The probability of coming up heads every single time equaled the probability of coming up the way it did. The probability of coming up the way it did was ridiculously small. Yet, it did it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If a coin was flipped 1 trillion times, it would come as no surprise that it came up heads 99 times in a row, maybe even more than once.

It would to me, considering the odds of it are less than 1 in a trillion^2

unless the odds of somebody cheating can be calculated to be even smaller.. cheating is your best explanation-

What makes you so sure the laws of reality so utterly prohibit God creating our universe?

 

[leibowde84]

It would to me, considering the odds of it are less than 1 in a trillion^2

unless the odds of somebody cheating can be calculated to be even smaller.. cheating is your best explanation-

What makes you so sure the laws of reality so utterly prohibit God creating our universe?

I don't think that the laws of reality prohibit God creating our universe. I think it is utterly premature to discount natural processes merely because we currently don't have a definite naturalistic explanation. That's all. There is no need to jump to either conclusion yet.

 

[Milton Platt]

It would to me, considering the odds of it are less than 1 in a trillion^2

unless the odds of somebody cheating can be calculated to be even smaller.. cheating is your best explanation-

What makes you so sure the laws of reality so utterly prohibit God creating our universe?

They don't. They just make him unnecessary.

 

[leibowde84]

It would to me, considering the odds of it are less than 1 in a trillion^2

unless the odds of somebody cheating can be calculated to be even smaller.. cheating is your best explanation-

What makes you so sure the laws of reality so utterly prohibit God creating our universe?

And, you are wrong about the odds. The probability for each coin flip is the same/independent of what has come before. Thinking otherwise is utilizing the well-known "gambling fallacy".

 

[Milton Platt]

So if you saw a coin being flipped 99 times and it comes up heads every single time..., you wouldn't suspect it was a trick coin?! how many flips would it take?

One head and one tail on the coin. Each flip has 50/50 chance. Not conversant with statistics enough to know if that is too simplistic, but that is what he means. Perhaps there is another element to statistics that calculates likelyhood of second heads after first and third after first two, etc. An interesting question.

 

[Milton Platt]

It would to me, considering the odds of it are less than 1 in a trillion^2

unless the odds of somebody cheating can be calculated to be even smaller.. cheating is your best explanation-

What makes you so sure the laws of reality so utterly prohibit God creating our universe?

not familiar with statistics to chalenge your probability. Can you share how you calculated that number?