Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was God designed?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 54 (34736)
03-20-2003 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by DanskerMan
03-18-2003 1:08 AM


Let me get this very clear ... I am not suggesting that God
was designed.
I am suggesting that if God is the IDer of ID, then the
existence of complex specified information cannot be
used as evidence of design UNLESS God was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DanskerMan, posted 03-18-2003 1:08 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 03-20-2003 10:54 AM Peter has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 47 of 54 (34768)
03-20-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Peter
03-20-2003 6:13 AM


I think to be designed means for an object to stand in relation to a purpose. God then has CSI, but He is not an object, from CSI he makes an object, and this object stands in relation to the CSI from which it came. This is as far as I understand Dembski.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 03-20-2003 6:13 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2003 8:07 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 03-26-2003 6:19 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 54 (34935)
03-21-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
03-20-2003 10:54 AM


syamsu writes:
I think to be designed means for an object to stand in relation to a purpose. God then has CSI, but He is not an object...
This is an interesting defense, but tends to beg the question of why living beings MUST be objects BECAUSE they have CSI, yet ID can simply assert God is inherently not an object (so CSI makes no difference to Him).
To do so not only begs the question above, but adds a plank to ID's design criteria which has not only not been proven, but never stated by Dembski in any fashion.
I would love to see a defense of this new plank to design criteria.
If it is simply that a creator cannot itself be judged like the objects they create, then living beings are freed from comparisons to watches... which is the point evos have been making since Hume, and is kind of intuitive.
If it is that a supernatural creator is different than a material creator well then that's a much more complicated claim and not so intuitive.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 03-20-2003 10:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 03-22-2003 1:51 AM Silent H has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 49 of 54 (34939)
03-22-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
03-21-2003 8:07 PM


It is not neccesary for God to be an object to create an object, rather then that God is inherently not an object. You seem to be in effect saying before that Dembski asserted that you have to be an elephant to design an elephant, you have to be an object with the same CSI which you create, which would be ridiculous.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2003 8:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2003 11:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 54 (34957)
03-22-2003 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Syamsu
03-22-2003 1:51 AM


syamsu writes:
It is not neccesary for God to be an object to create an object...
Agreed.
syamsu writes:
...rather then that God is inherently not an object.
While you can say it is not necessary for God to be an object, and that common conception is that God is not merely an object, the statement "God is inherently not an object" is blank assertion.
You need more to support this statement, doubly so because Dembski's strict logic and CSI theory has raised the bar above this kind of argument.
syamsu writes:
You seem to be in effect saying before that Dembski asserted that you have to be an elephant to design an elephant, you have to be an object with the same CSI which you create, which would be ridiculous.
This is not at all what I was trying to say. I apologize if it came off that way. I will try to make it clearer.
According to Dembski any designed object must have a creator. And while that creator may itself be an object, it must inherently (according to his conservation law) have more CSI than the object it created.
He uses an "pencil analogy" to show this. A sharpened pencil is an object which is "created" by a pencil sharpener (another object). The sharpener must contain more CSI than the pencil, because it contains both the CSI of the pencil and the added CSI of its own function.
Where then did the sharpener get its CSI? From the human that manufactured it. Thus the human has more CSI than the sharpener. Not that the human was a sharpener, only that as a sentient being the human was able to come up with the CSI necessary to make the sharpener (come up with, meaning "mentally design" before the physical design).
Where then did the human get his CSI? Now that's the interesting question. Evos would ask, why are you judging a living being the same as an object? Why MUST a sentient creator be like an object and be designed rather than simply have grown over time (and generations) into a more complex being capable of creating CSI in objects?
Dembski's argument, ala Paley's watchmaker, is that evos cannot simply stop at the living sentient being and say "done". To them it is intuitive that one can look at a watch and at a human being and see no difference. Where there is a certain level of CSI there MUST BE design, and so a creator.
The PROBLEM, is that once Dembski (or any IDer) makes such a bold claim, such a strict formula, he cannot simply take it back or throw on ad hoc (and more importantly: unsupported) exceptions to that formula.
If one cannot simply stop when the line is crossed from unquestionably designed object to the organic being (which creates objects), why is one able to stop when the line is crossed from organic being "creator objects" to supernatural beings(which created the creator objects)?
Wow, now that I set it out this clearly it occurs to me Behe's criticisms of evo come into play against Demski (and syamsu) at this point. While Dembski might wish to say the supernatural is the final box of CSI (as Behe says biochemistry is to biology), in fact the supernatural is simply another "blackbox".
According to Behe's arguments, until we know more about the supernatural, until we investigate it thoroughly, we cannot make claims on it, ESPECIALLY claims that the supernatural is simple (ie that there is one God that does everything and that is it).
Anyway, I hope you get the idea of what Dembski is arguing and so why it suddenly snaps back to strike ID claims that the Xtian god is the IDer of ID theory.
The IDer needs more than God is inherently not an object.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 03-22-2003 1:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 51 of 54 (35287)
03-26-2003 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
03-20-2003 10:54 AM


You seem to be missing the point.
If anything which exhibits/embodies CSI must
have been designed then it follows that God was designed.
If God was not designed then CSI cannot be a design criterion.
If there is a being/entity/transendental which has CSI, but
was not designed, then CSI no longer is a design criterion since
we have found something with CSI that was not designed.
This means that the CSI perceived to exist in biological systems
does not necessarily mean that they were designed, because there
can exits 'something' with CSI that wasn't designed.
In terms of the God of the Bible, ID presents an irreconcilable
contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 03-20-2003 10:54 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 52 of 54 (37661)
04-23-2003 5:59 AM


No comments ..... ?????

  
Number_ 19
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 54 (44292)
06-26-2003 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
03-13-2003 10:11 AM


Re: Dear Paulk...
It is from my understanding that space is infinite.One universe neatly lined up after another forever.If this is true your "God" could have just as easily been an alien that decided to use a whole universe as a labrotory one day.So I think this "God" if it exists then I think it would have died early on in our universe's history rather than still haning around today.So I would think of it being just like us,it had evolved or had been created also,lived,it created,it died.Just like all humans do today.
------------------
The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2003 10:11 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 06-26-2003 8:09 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 54 of 54 (44312)
06-26-2003 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 6:22 AM


Re: Dear Paulk...
The question here is aimed at the design recognition
performed by IDer's.
Based upon their own arguments god must have been
designed ... so either their arguments are wrong/incomplete
or god was designed.
Whether there is a god or not, and the nature of such
is a matter for faith and belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 6:22 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024