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

[Etritonakin]

Okay, our difference of opinion is that I do not believe inanimate objects possess awareness. Electrical attraction does not constitute what anyone would define as awareness, neither does any of the other properties associated with matter or energy. Awareness requires consciousness and that requires life. To use the word awareness to describe a property of matter is to misuse the word. We have other words for those properties.

As to a "prerequisite to awareness", the only prerequisite would be life.

You are technically correct about one rigid definition of awareness, but I'm a bit disappointed that you are so focused on it, as it is not very important to or compared to the overall point -which I'm not sure you're really trying to get.

What you are saying does not truly relate to what I was saying -and I was quite clear.

I also believe you have a comparatively simple and narrow definition of "life".

As long as there is more to learn, definitions should be at least somewhat flexible.

 

[Milton Platt]

You are technically correct about one rigid definition of awareness, but I'm a bit disappointed that you are so focused on it, as it is not very important to or compared to the overall point -which I'm not sure you're really trying to get.

What you are saying does not truly relate to what I was saying -and I was quite clear.

I also believe you have a comparatively simple and narrow definition of "life".

As long as there is more to learn, definitions should be at least somewhat flexible.

I would say that I subscribe to the definitionof life as found in most any dictionary. That is being precise, not narrow. To use a word outside of it's universally understood meaning is simply obfuscation.

Using language precisely does not prohibit learning, it aids it.

You were trying to impart an awareness to inanimate objects, and I am objecting to the concept. You have not demonstrated an inanimate object posesses awareness, only that it can be acted upon by an outside force.

 

[`mud]

And still.....everyone forgets about the edge !
~
'mud

 

[Etritonakin]

I would say that I subscribe to the definitionof life as found in most any dictionary. That is being precise, not narrow. To use a word outside of it's universally understood meaning is simply obfuscation.

Using language precisely does not prohibit learning, it aids it.

You were trying to impart an awareness to inanimate objects, and I am objecting to the concept. You have not demonstrated an inanimate object posesses awareness, only that it can be acted upon by an outside force.

You mean the modern dictionary -which is different from ancient dictionaries just as future dictionaries will be different as we understand things better -if people allow themselves to be open-minded, at least.

No. I'm not trying to do that.

 

[Etritonakin]

And still.....everyone forgets about the edge !
~
'mud

Were there edges before subdivision?

 

[Milton Platt]

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

I assume a naturalistic explanation based on the fact that everything so far has had a natural explanation and nothing has had a supernatural one. It is not logical to all of a sudden assume that there is a supernatural one in this instance just because we do not yet have a naturalistic answer. The correct response would be "I don't know" rather than making up a supernatural answer without a shred of good evidence to support it.

 

[Milton Platt]

You mean the modern dictionary -which is different from ancient dictionaries just as future dictionaries will be different as we understand things better -if people allow themselves to be open-minded, at least.

No. I'm not trying to do that.

Why in the world would I consult ancient dictionaries to converse in this day and age? If I used ancient words and ancient meanings I would become unintelligible. When I use words I expect them to be understood in the modern sense of the word. If you are consulting some ancient dictionary for a meaning no longer used, then you need to point everyone to the same dictionary. Since we are conversing in English, are you pulling definitions from Old English?

I am quite open minded but that does not equate to gullibility. I am a skeptic and won't accept wild claims out of hand. You need evidence.

All that being said, if your last sentence is correct, then I have mis construed what you are trying to say. It was my understanding that you were saying that interactions between elements indicated some sort of awareness, and that awareness can occur without life.

 

[Etritonakin]

Why in the world would I consult ancient dictionaries to converse in this day and age? If I used ancient words and ancient meanings I would become unintelligible. When I use words I expect them to be understood in the modern sense of the word. If you are consulting some ancient dictionary for a meaning no longer used, then you need to point everyone to the same dictionary. Since we are conversing in English, are you pulling definitions from Old English?

I am quite open minded but that does not equate to gullibility. I am a skeptic and won't accept wild claims out of hand. You need evidence.

All that being said, if your last sentence is correct, then I have mis construed what you are trying to say. It was my understanding that you were saying that interactions between elements indicated some sort of awareness, and that awareness can occur without life.

HEY! I heard they were going to have a Happy Pride parade soon!

 

[Milton Platt]

HEY! I heard they were going to have a Happy Pride parade soon!

WTF???

 

[Etritonakin]

WTF???

If you are ever driving around with people and someone tells you to take a Louis, please just turn left!

 

[Etritonakin]

Anyway.... was thinking recently.......... became mindful of it for whatever reason.....

Acknowledging that cyberspace is the product of the human mind -but considering that what exists there artificially is based on a representation of simple ones and zeros and a product of their manipulation and arrangement.....

Can a true artificial intelligence -a consciousness, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-determination etc. be created from those ones and zeros -which then can interface with the outside environment -master it, etc....

...or must true awareness, self-awareness, etc. be preceded by RNA, DNA, evolution based on such, etc....?

If so, why would we believe evolution would be limited to the sort of life we find on earth -and that our evolution was the only path to consciousness -or that consciousness must have been preceded by our sort of evolution alone?

Why could not anything that could possibly represent any sort of logic -and interact -evolve into a simple consciousness and self-awareness first -even as accidentally or inevitably as we believe of our own evolution -and become more aware of itself as it made more of itself?

 

[Milton Platt]

Anyway.... was thinking recently.......... became mindful of it for whatever reason.....

Acknowledging that cyberspace is the product of the human mind -but considering that what exists there artificially is based on a representation of simple ones and zeros and a product of their manipulation and arrangement.....

Can a true artificial intelligence -a consciousness, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-determination etc. be created from those ones and zeros -which then can interface with the outside environment -master it, etc....

...or must true awareness, self-awareness, etc. be preceded by RNA, DNA, evolution based on such, etc....?

If so, why would we believe evolution would be limited to the sort of life we find on earth -and that our evolution was the only path to consciousness -or that consciousness must have been preceded by our sort of evolution alone?

Why could not anything that could possibly represent any sort of logic -and interact -evolve into a simple consciousness and self-awareness first -even as accidentally or inevitably as we believe of our own evolution -and become more aware of itself as it made more of itself?

So you are abandoning the previous discussion, then?

 

[Etritonakin]

So you are abandoning the previous discussion, then?

It is the same subject -but I don't see there is any more of that discussion to be had.
You seemed to have reached a conclusion which you found acceptable.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is the same subject -but I don't see there is any more of that discussion to be had.
You seemed to have reached a conclusion which you found acceptable.

Actually, I am of the same opinion I was before the discussion. It seems to me you simply ended the discusion by telling me I should be using ancient dictionaries to understand words that are used commonly today and which have definitions commonly understood today. I asked which ancient dictionary you were using and you stopped responding.

You need to show me which dictionary you are referring to and we can then see if the definition of life as concieved by an ancient society that believed in magic and was bereft of most of the knowledge we have today about the subject had an accurate concept of what life is.

Your argument seems to rest on that definition from that particular source, and yet you will not provide the source, so the only opinion I can have at the moment is that you have no such source. If your argument is based on a ficticious source, then your argument fails.

 

[Lighthouse]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

Many ID enthusiast claim that evolution is incomplete becuase it does not explain the origin of the first life (which is not evolution's purpose) and thus insist that it should have no scientific standing (using the same 'logic' one could say that Gravity is not true becuase we can not solidly identifiy it's source [though Gravitons are very likely, similar to how Abiogenesis is very likely]). I therfore ask these ID proponents as to where the "Designer" originates. Many Creactionist and ID proponents say that as a complex universe we need a complex being to design it. However if this is the case then why wouldn't an even more complex being be needed to make such a complex being?

Hypothetically, if there is a Creator and it is necessary, the question of "who created the Creator" would not apply as the law of "Cannot create something out of nothing" would be negated due to the fact that all scientific laws crumble and are irrelevant at and before the potential creation. These would include the law of "energy cannot be created or destroyed." If there is a Creator, I'd have to assume that it is a force beyond our minds and that it can create and destroy energy.

 

[outhouse]

Hypothetically, if there is a Creator and it is necessary, the question of "who created the Creator" would not apply as the law of "Cannot create something out of nothing" would be negated due to the fact that all scientific laws crumble and are irrelevant at and before the potential creation.

Not really true. Our universe started from the expansion of a singularity. So in theological terms, god caused the singularity to expand. Science does study singularities, and while we do not know ALL of the natural laws surrounding them, much does fall in the category of scientific law and study. [its effects in and on nature] If god did this, his realm went into our scientific laws.

Now we know the universe was not created from nothing. That is a perversion of context often used by creationist. It is how you define "nothing" that gets tricky [Lawrence Krauss]

But I digress who created the creator, is a valid question. And when we look at the source of the creator, lies a lot of plagiarized mythology that evolved into its current form, often imaginative based.

These would include the law of "energy cannot be created or destroyed." .

But it can be used, and changed into different forms.

If there is a Creator, I'd have to assume that it is a force beyond our minds and that it can create and destroy energy.

The "if" is not logical or reasonable but I understand I'm going off topic.

Why would you give this concept an ability outside laws of nature, its seems then to be more human based definition that is imaginative a long the lines of fiction more then something that is.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not really true. Our universe started from the expansion of a singularity. So in theological terms, god caused the singularity to expand. Science does study singularities, and while we do not know ALL of the natural laws surrounding them, much does fall in the category of scientific law and study. [its effects in and on nature] If god did this, his realm went into our scientific laws.

Now we know the universe was not created from nothing. That is a perversion of context often used by creationist. It is how you define "nothing" that gets tricky [Lawrence Krauss]

But I digress who created the creator, is a valid question. And when we look at the source of the creator, lies a lot of plagiarized mythology that evolved into its current form, often imaginative based.




But it can be used, and changed into different forms.




The "if" is not logical or reasonable but I understand I'm going off topic.

Why would you give this concept an ability outside laws of nature, its seems then to be more human based definition that is imaginative a long the lines of fiction more then something that is.

Just a thought project if a Creator was necessary. A pure hypothetical with the assumption that there is a Creator.

Yes, I suppose if there were this initial Creator... the next part of the thought process would be if it has dispensed itself into scientific laws or if it resides both within and outside of scientific laws.

Ie: before creation, it could create energy but now it can't as its confined itself into the realm of scientific laws which it now must obey. Or it could still create and destroy energy while also being in the realm of scientific laws.

We do know in actuality that the scientific laws break down at and before that initial singularity. Going back to the hypothetical Creator, I would also add to the assumption that it would exist outside of the laws before its realm went into scientific laws because there were no laws prior to after the singularity expanded.

So in a sense then, if the laws break down at or before an initial singularity... hypothetically something can come from nothing. Then it goes back to the tricky part of what that nothing is.

Agree, no such thing as nothing and agree with Krauss that's where it's tricky.

Wishing you and yours a wonderful new year.

 

[outhouse]

We do know in actuality that the scientific laws break down at and before that initial singularity.

Only the known laws break down.

Another name for singularity is "we don't know" [Neil Degrasse Tyson]

hypothetically something can come from nothing.

My guess, is that a super massive black hole expanded creating our universe, and that just because we cannot describe the substance of a singularity, some label it nothing.

Wishing you and yours a wonderful new year.

Thank you! you to

 

[Etritonakin]

Something formed us out of what was before we were -the only questions are whether it knew it did -knew it knew it did -knew it existed, etc....

Such self-awareness could be accomplished by feedback in specific configurations....

 

[`mud]

And he waited for the earth to form,
in the waters of the creation all about,
and then it was !
Now......Genesis 3 ?
~
'mud