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

[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?

It's also a bad analogy because over 99% of species have been unsuccessful and have gone extinct.

 

[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?

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.

Natural processes had their fair chances; static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- all firmly debunked and all we are left with is the last resort invisible infinite probability machine- the multiverse- capable of creating absolutely anything accidentally... except God of course !

 

[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

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

So far, everything seems to have a natural cause. I see no reason to jump all of a sudden to supernatural ones.
Just saying an intelligent being, or god, or thing created something is not an explanation. You have to demonstrate the existence of this creator and then show how it created things.

I do not think things guided by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. can be said to be blind chance. Things happen within strict parameters.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

it's basically 1 / 2^100.

so doubling the odds 100 times in a row- like the old parable of doubling grains of rice for each square on the chessboard- not enough rice on the planet to do each square

for the coin toss its comes out as 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376:1 I think!

which is over a trillion^2


The practical point being, the odds of somebody using a double headed coin to cheat are far smaller!

 

[leibowde84]

Natural processes had their fair chances; static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- all firmly debunked and all we are left with is the last resort invisible infinite probability machine- the multiverse- capable of creating absolutely anything accidentally... except God of course !

This is a shining example of the absurdity I was pointing out. To say that the options for natural processes is exhausted is patently false. We have no way of knowing what natural explanations might be discovered in the future. We are in no way limited to our current scientific understanding, as the scientific method is a relatively new method, and science in general is not even close to being fully developed, no matter what limitations one assumes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So far, everything seems to have a natural cause. I see no reason to jump all of a sudden to supernatural ones.
Just saying an intelligent being, or god, or thing created something is not an explanation. You have to demonstrate the existence of this creator and then show how it created things.

I do not think things guided by the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. can be said to be blind chance. Things happen within strict parameters.

This gets back to the original paradox of infinite regression, infinite natural automated processes being required to support each other

Likewise we could examine the code running this website, and see that everything happens within strict parameters yes? it's all automated, spontaneous, without need for direct agency nor direct evidence of any programmer

does this suggest in any way that the software also probably wrote itself? why jump to intelligent agency when everything apparently works without it?

i.e. automated function does not = automated origin, the opposite argument can be made at least as well.

We can generate trillions of bits of random code all day long and get nothing functional.

The information included in the singularity represented a literal self extracting archive of highly compressed information, which ultimately developed it's own consciousness to ponder itself with..

by chance? not impossible, I just think there are far less improbable explanations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is a shining example of the absurdity I was pointing out. To say that the options for natural processes is exhausted is patently false. We have no way of knowing what natural explanations might be discovered in the future. We are in no way limited to our current scientific understanding, as the scientific method is a relatively new method, and science in general is not even close to being fully developed, no matter what limitations one assumes.

multiverses are by definition inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation are they not?- we have tested everything else testable as a 'natural' explanation and are left only with that which was labeled 'religious pseudoscience': One singular unique creation event, inexplicable by any known natural process, a beginning to all space/time/matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it.

 

[leibowde84]

multiverses are by definition inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation are they not?- we have tested everything else testable as a 'natural' explanation and are left only with that which was labeled 'religious pseudoscience': One singular unique creation event, inexplicable by any known natural process, a beginning to all space/time/matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it.

Nope. None of this is true. We have in no way exhausted all natural options. How could we when we most certainly aren't even aware of all the natural options?

 

[leibowde84]

multiverses are by definition inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation are they not?- we have tested everything else testable as a 'natural' explanation and are left only with that which was labeled 'religious pseudoscience': One singular unique creation event, inexplicable by any known natural process, a beginning to all space/time/matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it.

And, the multi-verse hypothesis is not an accepted scientific theory. It is plausible, but it could certainly be wrong. Remember, the mere absence of an alternative explanation in no way supports the argument for multi-verses. You need independent evidence to support scientific claims (or any claim, for that matter).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

we have tested everything else testable as a 'natural' explanation and are left only with that which was labeled 'religious pseudoscience'.

That is so far from true. Like seriously, dude?

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

I'm not saying it needs to exist in any other way -I'm saying that it could exist in essentially the same way.

What is the most simple living being you can think of which is aware?

How is it aware?

What must occur for it to be aware of something?

I did not say that the circuit was an awareness comparable to the scale of our human awareness, but it would be a simple awareness -and our complex awareness is based on such simple awareness.

Our complex awareness can be broken down into many simple things -even similar to that circuit -but the circuit in the example is quite complex compared the the most basic interactions of which we are aware -but those interactions -the interactions within a single copper atom, for example, may act rather like that circuit.

If there were not the most basic interactions, we could not be aware at all -because they are the basis of awareness and that of which to be aware.

Light bouncing or being absorbed is due to a certain type of interaction.

When whatever bounces or absorbs senses photons, they react in a certain way -there is a simple input, process and output.

It very much is a simple type of awareness -and such are the basis for more complex awareness.

More complex awareness, self-awareness, etc., are essentially many such simple things in a more complex configuration.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. None of this is true. We have in no way exhausted all natural options. How could we when we most certainly aren't even aware of all the natural options?

There are no absolutes of course, but as far as we can tell, we have what it looks like, a universe that suddenly appeared with no available evidence of any prior natural process, pretty much like the Bible summarized and in stark contrast to what cosmologists predicted.

This is not to say there can't possibly be something else we haven't thought of- but all the 'self explanatory/ testable' natural hypotheses (steady state/ big crunch) were pretty well debunked- the universe had a beginning and doesn't appear to be capable of regenerating itself automatically-

This increases the odds of God by the exact same argument that the hypotheses used to claim him redundant.

various versions of ID (but not God!) -aliens, future civilizations, extra-universal intelligence of some kind are increasingly being pondered even amongst traditionally atheist circles of cosmogony- arguments from an ever diminishing atheist gap I would say!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is so far from true. Like seriously, dude?

Well, not withstanding Earth being created by Magratheans at the request of mice obviously!

 

[Midnight Rain]

various versions of ID (but not God!) -aliens, future civilizations, extra-universal intelligence of some kind are increasingly being pondered even amongst traditionally atheist circles of cosmogony- arguments from an ever diminishing atheist gap I would say!

I assure you all forms of ID are not even considered in the scientific community. God or not ID is not backed in evidence.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Well, not withstanding Earth being created by Magratheans at the request of mice obviously!

We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what we know about the Universe. To say we've exhausted all possible explanations (apart from the supernatural) is incredibly naive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what we know about the Universe. To say we've exhausted all possible explanations (apart from the supernatural) is incredibly naive.

We've exhausted everything directly testable, contained within the universe, that could account for it's existence, correct me if I'm wrong. (and correct Hawking and any other multiverse or M-theory proponent while you're at it!) leaving us only with that which is inherently beyond nature as we can possibly know it- aka supernatural.

which is not really surprising, because otherwise you are suggesting that the laws of nature can be explained by- those very same laws, that everything which is observable, can be explained by- those same things- this is a paradox unique to atheist beliefs. One which can be solved if creative intelligence is not unduly prohibited from playing a role.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

We've exhausted everything directly testable, contained within the universe, that could account for it's existence, correct me if I'm wrong. (and correct Hawking and any other multiverse or M-theory proponent while you're at it!) leaving us only with that which is inherently beyond nature as we can possibly know it- aka supernatural.

We haven't even explored much outside of this solar system. So to say we've exhausted every possible theory is a rather severe lack of foresight. There's things we know are yet to be discovered. With new discoveries comes new theories. To say there are no more theories left is to say there's nothing left for us to discover, which is far from the truth.

We haven't discovered the graviton yet. We haven't figured out what dark matter or dark energy is. We haven't unified relativity with quantum mechanics. Any one of these things happening can manifest new theories automatically.

because otherwise you are suggesting that the laws of nature can be explained by- those very same laws, that everything which is observable, can be explained by- those same things- this is a paradox unique to atheist beliefs. One which can be solved if creative intelligence is not unduly prohibited from playing a role.

Not sure how you got that, but no I'm not saying that.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not saying it needs to exist in any other way -I'm saying that it could exist in essentially the same way.

What is the most simple living being you can think of which is aware?

How is it aware?

What must occur for it to be aware of something?

I did not say that the circuit was an awareness comparable to the scale of our human awareness, but it would be a simple awareness -and our complex awareness is based on such simple awareness.

Our complex awareness can be broken down into many simple things -even similar to that circuit -but the circuit in the example is quite complex compared the the most basic interactions of which we are aware -but those interactions -the interactions within a single copper atom, for example, may act rather like that circuit.

If there were not the most basic interactions, we could not be aware at all -because they are the basis of awareness and that of which to be aware.

Light bouncing or being absorbed is due to a certain type of interaction.

When whatever bounces or absorbs senses photons, they react in a certain way -there is a simple input, process and output.

It very much is a simple type of awareness -and such are the basis for more complex awareness.

More complex awareness, self-awareness, etc., are essentially many such simple things in a more complex configuration.

Before I try to answer any of that let me get a definition from you as what you think constitutes awareness. Maybe we have a difference of definition here.

It appeared to me you were trying to say inanimate objects have awareness, so whatever level of awareness a simple life form may have is beside the question here. It is awareness in the absence of life I am rejecting.

 

[Etritonakin]

Before I try to answer any of that let me get a definition from you as what you think constitutes awareness. Maybe we have a difference of definition here.

It appeared to me you were trying to say inanimate objects have awareness, so whatever level of awareness a simple life form may have is beside the question here. It is awareness in the absence of life I am rejecting.

That's understandable -and I tend to use words in ways which they are not normally used.

I am saying that the animate -such as humans -are composed of the inanimate -and are animate due to a specific arrangement of the inanimate.... and that the animate and inanimate are two aspects of the same overall reality.

I can say that "I" am animate, but that which I animATE is the inanimate.

(We might not see evidence that the universe itself is animate, but perhaps that is because we are looking at the equivalent of its inanimate toenail)

At some point, the inanimate which we know of after the Big Bang became arranged by whatever means and in such a manner as to become what you would consider animate.

Certain molecules arranged into RNA, DNA, etc., etc. (or whatever)....
I do not know at what point afterwards you would say that something was aware.

I was saying that whatever point that might be, it was preceded by a more simple type or sort or level of awareness -or a prerequisite to what you would call awareness.

On a certain level, one might say that... for example... a game trail camera becomes aware of passing animals due to sensing certain natural interactions. It then reacts to that awareness and snaps a picture.

It does not know what animals are -it does not know that it is a trail camera -because its arrangement is not complex enough. It processes a certain level of information. It has a certain level of knowledge when it senses -but does not know that it does, does not know that it knows that it does, does not sense itself, understand itself, etc....

The same sorts of things happen on much smaller levels (one atom senses the presence of another type of atom due to the nature of each, and each reacts in a specific way) -and would also happen at the smallest possible level....

....and it is those similar things which happen from the smallest level upward which make complex awareness and self-awareness possible.

 

[Milton Platt]

That's understandable -and I tend to use words in ways which they are not normally used.

I am saying that the animate -such as humans -are composed of the inanimate -and are animate due to a specific arrangement of the inanimate.... and that the animate and inanimate are two aspects of the same overall reality.

I can say that "I" am animate, but that which I animATE is the inanimate.

At some point, the inanimate which we know of became arranged in such a manner as to become what you would consider animate.

Certain molecules arranged into RNA, DNA, etc., etc. (or whatever)....
I do not know at what point afterwards you would say that something was aware.

I was saying that whatever point that might be, it was preceded by a more simple type or sort or level of awareness -or a prerequisite to what you would call awareness.

On a more complex level, one might say that... For example... a game trail camera becomes aware of passing animals due to sensing certain natural interactions. It then reacts to that awareness and snaps a picture.

It does not know what animals are -it does not know that it is a trail camera -because its arrangement is not complex enough.

The same sorts of things happen on much smaller levels (one atom senses the presence of another type of atom due to the nature of each, and each reacts in a specific way) -and would also happen at the smallest possible level....

....and it is those similar things which happen from the smallest level upward which make complex awareness and self-awareness possible.

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.