Was God designed?

Great, the first part of your sentence completely refutes Dembski. He has pointed to human creativity as specified complexity and so a sign that we were created (by a more complex entity which must be the Xtian God).As I mentioned in earlier posts, this issue is within ID theory, not materialist science.So don't blame the messenger, or his philosophical standpoint. Blame Dembski and ID theory.------------------
holmes

"Uhhhhhhhh... that means you reject ID theory. It's just that simple.

​

No one is applying ID theory in any way that Dembski has not. Check out his books on the subject of complexity. He says that since life is complex (information wise) there needed to be something that passed that information on to life: this must have been God because he is the ultimate in complex information.

​

This is Dembski's ID theory, not materialist science. Materialist science allows for the accumulation of information in biological systems (despite creationist references to the 2nd law of thermodynamics)."As concisely and diplomatically as I can say it, you are simply wrong here."Please stop making this an "us" and "them" thing. This is all about an objective assessment of ID theory. Both sides stand to gain from an objectve analysis of the problem."I'll take notice when I see 'objectivity' - I haven't.
Objectively speaking, I have merely pointed out a misapplication of ID. I am fully aware/familiar with ID Theory but you don't appear to be. Besides, what do you think there is to gain by examining the "flavor of ambition"?"Besides stating "is not", please come up with an accurate reason for why specified complexity (of information) does not apply to God."Accurate reason : you are attempting to measure the infinite with a finite ruler. The two are inconmeasurable and the problem is thereby ill-conceived."And when you do, please mail that to Dembski as you will have undone ID theory from a totally different angle."This statement illustrates not understanding ID at all. Hard as I've tried I cannot see the logical connection between what I have said so far and your statement above."ID theory, specifically Dembski's version, demands that God be an entity of vast specified complexity. The amount of complexity may never be known (merely suggested by the greatest complexity that we can find) but complex nonetheless."There you go again - "...God be an entity of vast specified complexity." While we're talking about the "specified complexity of God", let's talk about the 'flavor of ambition' or the 'taste of the musical note c-minor', shall we?""They" did not say this. Dembski did.

​

Thus ID theory has created a very real paradox for both the "Us" and "Them" camps."No, you are creating this pseudo-dilemma because of not comprehending ID Theory at all.Uhhh... the Admin has asked that we drop this line... I'd like to comply. Let me know if you wish to move it elsewhere.In Christ,
Jorge

Well it is pretty obvious that you - to try to be diplomatic - don't really understand what you are talking about.

Discussion of the nature of God as defined by the IDists is on topic. Discussion of non-ID perspectives of the nature of God is not. I'd say you're last post was on topic.I *would* ask that you please follow the Forum Guidelines and support assertions with evidence or argument, for example: Maybe he's dead wrong, but you haven't told us how he's wrong. If someone were to ask me, "How is this explanation from Holmes wrong?" using your post as a reference source would not help me answer that question.Then there's this: Who is the judge of objectivity? Are you objective?And this: And you've demonstrated the infiniteness of God where?Please understand I'm not taking any position regarding the validity of your assertions. Holmes may be wrong and unobjective, and God may be infinite. But rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines requests that assertions be backed up by evidence and/or argument.Normally I'm fairly hands-off with new members, but I'm a very old hand at this, and I'm picking up lots of warning signs that this thread will soon deteriorate into mutual charges of insincere debate and name calling.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Reference Dembski stating that creativity is specified complexity. It doesn't make sense to me to see creativity as specified complexity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I asked you to provide evidence from Dembski's work to support your argument. Your response was to claim I have no idea what ID is? Why didn't you just present evidence? That would have shown me up.For you information I know quite a bit about ID. And by ID I am refering to Intelligent Design Theory as advanced by the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Behe, Wells, and organizations like the Discovery Institute. This "official" ID is wholly separate from the general creationist theory that life (and the universe) was designed, as "official" IDers are quick to point out.This thread's original post addressed "official" ID, rather than general theories of design and this is all I have addressed in my replies. I admit I know very little about general creationist ID theory as I have never seen anyone give a coherent explanation of it (though my eyes and ears are still open).If you are a defender of general creationist ID theory then all of this is meaningless as you (like us) reject "official" ID.If you are defending "official" ID theory then read on...The author of the original post gave an objective analysis of the logic Dembski has used to detect design. Dembski's logical argument, and its application, can be found in any of his writings which address complex specified information (CSI) as a criterion for design and his law of conservation of information to tie CSI from the organic to the divine.His writing is longwinded enough that a simple paragraph will not fully flesh out his theory. Here is a good book for you to read to get a handle on his overall theory.:Intelligent Design: the bridge between science & theology
1999 William DembskiHere is perhaps the simplest section I can use (in a forum post) to let Dembski speak for himself. Dembski goes on to debate those limited possibilities, favoring a supernatural endpoint which pretty well defines God as the largest collection of CSI.The author of the original post merely points out that Dembski's design criteria (based on level of CSI) when applied to God, must declare Him to be designed. Since the author is critiquing the idea that CSI is an adequate criteria for detecting design his argument makes sense. Anyone who believes in a noncreated God should reject Dembski's CSI design criteria.The section of Dembski's work above should help raise another question (though along the same lines), which is how can Dembski blankly assert that leaving the realm of nature ends the necessary causal chain of CSI that he himself has "proven"? As long as the source of CSI is not divine (though the cause may be abiologic) Dembski requires CSI to continue backward indefinitely, but uses a hidden premise that the divine can dodge this requirement.Both issues sort of feed on each other. If Dembski (or any "official" ID theorist) can come up with a solid logical explanation for why the divine provides stopping power for CSI causal chain mechanisms, then he might be able to provide an argument for why CSI design criteria does not apply to divine beings.Such an explanation must use CSI, and the law of conservation of information, because the supernatural are inclusive to (connected by) these theories, as Dembski has implied by the above passage. Explanations cannot be "just because" and "how do you evaluate the flavor of ambition?" and other such nonsense. Dembski has raised the bar above this level.I look forward to reading such a defense from someone so "well read" in ID theory that they can blankly assert I know nothing about it.Of course this is not to say such a defense will result in a happy ending for official ID theory either. There are a few reductios which start heading IDs way when the necessary causal chain of CSI becomes broken at the supernatural level...------------------
holmes

What can I say Syamsu? I agree with you. And that's exactly why you are refuting ID theory. In other words all creation is a quantifiable transmission of CSI from one entity to another. I didn't say it, Dembski does.If that doesn't get your goat, how about something from Johnson? Although slightly obscure (as Johnson's writing is more often than not), "biological cell" is a reference to Behe's work on irreducible complexity, "conscious mind" is a reference to Dembski's work on CSI and informational pathways defined by his law of conservation of information. The conscious mind and its creativity is measurable as CSI according to them.Any reaction to this (keeping in mind the topic is that CSI detects design, and so God's creativity indicates he was created)?[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-15-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 03-15-2003]

I think you are misunderstanding Dembski, Intelligent Design is not about transmission of information, but creation of information. In normal reproduction of organisms information is transmitted, but in creation the information is said to be formed from an "intention".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have got to be kidding me. Read the excerpt from Dembski that I included in post 36... the post immediately preceeding my post to you.He clearly states that it is all about transmission. And this should be intuitive anyway, as what is "formation" or "creation" except the intentional transmission of information into an as yet unformed substance from a CSI entity?Even if one were to accept your altered definition (splitting transmission events from creation events), the causal chain problem would not disappear, but alter to "creation and transmission causal chain CSI".But I still recommend you read the entire book I referenced in post 36. You will find I am not mistaken.Before you do, there may be a simpler point I can make. Think of Paley's watchmaker. The watch is created. The whole point of ID is to analogize the creation of a watch to God's creation of a living being. One does not need to talk about changes in watches over time.Creation and transmission events in this case are identical.------------------
holmes

Isn't this thread a lot like my three year old daughter asking me, "Well, then who made God?"It seems to me that the problem with the traditional personified image we often see of God (Or the "Godified" image we see of man, i.e. the "in Our image" thing)is that it truely does beg the question.

Actually it isn't really about "who made God". It is about whether Dembski's design detection methodology works or not. So far the response seems to be "it doesn't but lets sweep the problem under the carpet and pretend that it doesn't exist".

But in post 36 you quote Dembski as saying that *naturalistic explanations* only push the information question one step back.You suggest Dembski does the same thing, that he pushes the information question back one step, saying the information was transmitted by God, but then how did God get the information in the first place etc, so then information isn't explained. But that kind of endless regress is exactly what Dembski seems to be arguing against, and he suggests that naturalists think this way about information, not intelligent design people. At least that's how I understand the quote.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If you understand that quote to be merely a criticism of naturalist theory by Dembski, with no advancement of his own (ID) philosophy, then I don't know what to say. Reread it.It is clear (at least as clear as Dembski gets) that his critique is that naturalist theory fails because it has no point at which CSI can ultimately be said to originate (since they are stuck in the material world). NATURALIST THEORY has no answer to his criticism based on DEMBSKI'S theory of CSI and law of conservation of information.Dembski suggests he and ID theory have the solution for that problem by using God as the endpoint (or beginning point depending on your view).I cannot believe you don't understand this is the point of that quote.The law of conservation of information is DEMBSKI'S creation. It has nothing to do with naturalists (it sure as hell isn't a real law). He created it just to make the point that God is the origin of CSI (which is also his creation).That point aside, his implied solution is problematic as the premise that his conservation law does not apply to supernatural entities (other than to prove they are storehouses of CSI) is blank assertion.You are correct that I am criticizing Dembski's position because his causal chain conveniently ends at the border of the supernatural, and I do suggest that those entities are just as liable as material entities to the "and it got the info from where?" problem.But this is not the main problem with Dembski's theory, and not the focus of this thread.Without question that quote is a positive argument (from Dembski's point of view) that CSI was transmitted from God, and so God is a CSI laden being. God must be because there is no other way for God to create CSI beings without having CSI himself (and a greater amount of CSI at that).That is one of the main conclusions Dembski uses to declare victory.Unfortunately for him, if God must contain CSI (and according to his rules and statements God does), then ID design criteria (based on CSI)would label God as a designed being.This is a major reductio for using CSI as a criteria for design, and was appropriately laid out in the first post of this thread!To read that quote from Dembski and believe he's saying CSI and its causal chain is a naturalist position... like I said, I just don't know what more to say... you are 100% wrong on this.Reread the quote, and if you still don't see what I am talking about, pick up the book and read it in its entirety.Then again, I just noticed that you conveniently did not mention the other quotes I gave you from Dembski and Johnson.Dembski's statement is clear that creation events, even if formed through intention, come from intelligent agents. Since he is speaking about God that means he is saying that God is an intelligent agent (and so has CSI).Not to mention that both quotes show ID theory holds that creativity can be measured as CSI.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-17-2003]

Only due to the way you framed this "equation". You cannot confine the Creator to the limits of His creation, hence although it has the appearance of contradiction, it simply is not relevant. If God truly is who He says He is, then He is not only an "extreme of specified complexity" but He is so far above anything we can conceive in our limited dimensions, that the question is frankly unfair. God is not bound by the laws we make or discover, He is the *lawmaker*.
It seems unfair, but what kind of God would He be if He were confined to our limits? If He had a designer? He wouldn't be God.You can't place God in a box made by man.Sonnikke------------------
"We arrive at the truth, not by the reason only, but also by the heart."
Blaise Pascal

Hi Sonnikke,This thread is addressing the question of whether Dembski's view of the nature of God contains a contradiction. A lengthy but concise explanation of Dembski's view is contained in Message 36 by Holmes. Other views on the nature of God belong in another thread.If I've misunderstood and you're actually arguing that Dembski's views are being misrepresented then please ignore this message.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator