Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 109 (227638)
07-29-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
07-24-2005 9:47 PM


this is easily answered
It's hard to imagine how you guys could honestly not see this.
The demand that complexity in the physical world suggests a Designer and an Intelligence is germane to the physical world. The design suggests an intelligence, but the claim is not that the intelligence automatically suggests a designer, although that could be true.
For example, the fact that something is designed by a person is evidence there is a designer, and it is evidence there is intelligence, but in terms of naturalistic observations, we cannot say the intelligence itself, however complex, is evidence of a designer. The intelligence is an attribute of the designer, not the thing designed.
I think intelligence is evidence of a Creator, but in terms of ID and science and what we know about design in the physical world, the claim is not that the fact humans possess intelligence indicates Intelligent Design in this area of the debate.
I will concede that could be so in information theory, but there is an answer to that as well. Man is created in the image of God, or so it is said. Man has a spirit. So if one attributes intelligence, creativity, and other God-like attributes to man remaining in connection with God to a degree, sort of like man's spirit being borrowed from God, then we see that intelligence and things like that could stem from God as much as just being a design of God, and get around the whole argument since the intelligence is something borrowed, on loan from God as El Rushbo says!
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 11:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 07-24-2005 9:47 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2005 10:42 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 109 (227640)
07-29-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by sidelined
07-27-2005 1:10 PM


Re: "I Am"
Maybe this can help you as far as time being created. In our sense of time, we are no longer present in the moment that just passed.
God is. He is present in every point of time, and as such exists apart and beyond time, but within time, at the same time.
Understand, or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 07-27-2005 1:10 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 3:47 AM randman has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 109 (227642)
07-29-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
07-29-2005 11:06 PM


Re: "I Am"
I can't make heads or tails out of your logic here.
Are you saying that the Big Bang theory caused a flip-flop among steady state theorists who previously had no difficulty with "beginninglessness" but do now? How do you know?
How do you know the positions regarding God and/or beginnings of any of those people, then or now?
Isn't this your logic?:
1. Some scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, proposed the universe had no beginning. Their theory failed to gain and hold acceptance in the scientific community.
2. A theory was proposed by scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, that there had been (at least) one beginning to the universe, and this theory became generally accepted among many believers and unbelievers alike.
3. Fifty years later, some unbelieving, scientifically minded person posting into this thread finds the notion of a God with no beginning illogical.
Therefore, unbelievers have no intellectual integrity.
Steady state theory attempted to reconcile the General Theory of Relativity with observation. It failed in the face of new observations, and Big Bang theory was widely adopted because it better fit the new observations.
What could be more intellectually honest than that?
How intellectually honest is it to lump together scientists, then and now, whose positions on the question of God and beginnings you simply do not know, so that you can assault the integrity of "God-scoffers"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 11:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 11:47 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 109 (227644)
07-29-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Omnivorous
07-29-2005 11:44 PM


Re: "I Am"
It's simple. The scientific community did not scoff at the idea that universe had no beginning, as if it was illogical.
They had no disagreement with it in principle, but just found that the evidence supported the idea the universe had a beginning.
So it's clear that the scientific community and mentality is not that it is illogical to think something could exist without a beginning, unless of course we are talking about God.
If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's too bad.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 11:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2005 11:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2005 11:55 PM randman has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 35 of 109 (227646)
07-29-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
07-29-2005 11:47 PM


Re: "I Am"
quote:
If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's too bad.
Oh, I see it alright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 11:47 PM randman has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 36 of 109 (227667)
07-30-2005 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
07-29-2005 11:22 PM


Re: "I Am"
randman
God is. He is present in every point of time, and as such exists apart and beyond time, but within time, at the same time.
You say that he is present in every point in time and as such exists apart and beyond time.
These are contradictory states.You are throwing phrases together than do not support one another.To be beyond time means to not be affected by time.However without the presence of time actions cannot be accomplished since the passsage of time is what allows for events to occur.A god without time cannot effect an action else he has,by definition employed time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 11:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:17 PM sidelined has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 37 of 109 (227707)
07-30-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by sidelined
07-27-2005 1:10 PM


Re: "I Am"
Sidelined, I can (and have, many times) modelled a universe on a computer. The universe is sometimes 4 dimensional. Usually, one (and only one) of those dimensions is "time". My universe can be described as evolving along the time direction. BUT my simulation models the whole universe at once. The time of my model does not correspond to my "real" time. I can interact with my model at any point in "time", and can examine what is going on in my model at any "time". I can change a "future" feature, then later alter a "past" feature. Whenever I change something, the whole universe (future and past) responds. My actions are not constrained by the "time" of my model. I do not require "energy" to do anything. I just change the parameters of my model. My model is constrained by what I chose. I am not constrained by my model... unless I choose to be...
Does this picture help explain (my) theism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 07-27-2005 1:10 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 12:17 PM cavediver has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 38 of 109 (227778)
07-30-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by cavediver
07-30-2005 9:48 AM


Re: "I Am"
carediver
I can interact with my model at any point in "time", and can examine what is going on in my model at any "time"
If you were the computer on which your program ran you might begin to have something.Can you remove "time" as a feature of your computer model and still run the program?

For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in
the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2005 9:48 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2005 1:27 PM sidelined has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 39 of 109 (227808)
07-30-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by sidelined
07-30-2005 12:17 PM


Re: "I Am"
If you were the computer on which your program ran you might begin to have something.
Well, I only use the computer because my brain isn't quick enough and I can't juggle the number of variables and degrees of freedom required in my head. But the computer is still only an extension of my brain. However, I'm not sure why this matters. I built the computer to run the program... (or could have done)
Can you remove "time" as a feature of your computer model and still run the program?
"time" is intrinsic to my model... it is the name of one of my four dimensions, named as such because my space-time metric is indefinite. I can use my same program to model a 4-d Euclidean universe which has no time dimension. Either way, this has NOTHING to do with time as I experience it. I can run my universe forwards, backwards, sideways, but most usually I solve it simultaneously everywhere.
What I am saying is... Even if I assume that God exists within a concept of time... i.e. there is an ordering to his "thoughts" and "actions", then there is no reason whatsoever to assume that his time has anything to do with our time. I go further and say that as our concept of "time" is based on us being in a special part of the universe (i.e. well away from any significant curvature), that God's time CANNOT have anything to do with our time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 12:17 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 07-31-2005 1:01 AM cavediver has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 109 (227876)
07-30-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
07-30-2005 3:47 AM


Re: "I Am"
If God is present in every point of time, then He is also apart from time in the sense that we are "in" time from our experience. We are present in one point of time.
God being present in all points of time is not therefore limited to one point in time, and is thus apart from it.
Maybe this will help. God is also present at every physical spot. There is no place where God does not exist, nor that He is not present in some sense.
But that doesn't mean God is not apart from all of creation as well. In fact, His omnipresence is a feature that sets Him apart from the creation.
Same with time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 3:47 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Freeloader
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 109 (227960)
07-30-2005 7:39 PM


Unseen Kingdoms
There are many ideas on evolution and where we may have come from and, if indeed we are being controlled or directed in some fashion...
http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/unseen.kingdoms/index.html

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 42 of 109 (228018)
07-31-2005 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
07-30-2005 1:27 PM


Re: "I Am"
cavediver
Even if I assume that God exists within a concept of time... i.e. there is an ordering to his "thoughts" and "actions", then there is no reason whatsoever to assume that his time has anything to do with our time
What do you mean by "his" time as opposed to "our" time? Have you evidence that there is a "different time" that could be utilised? If not then I suggest you properly define what you mean since time has definite properties that are observable.
I go further and say that as our concept of "time" is based on us being in a special part of the universe (i.e. well away from any significant curvature), that God's time CANNOT have anything to do with our time.
Perhaps you could further elaborate on what you mean here.What evidence do you base this statement upon and why would you take this position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 07-30-2005 1:27 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2005 5:23 AM sidelined has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 109 (228038)
07-31-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by sidelined
07-31-2005 1:01 AM


Re: "I Am"
What do you mean by "his" time as opposed to "our" time?
This is exactly what I as referring to in my computer model analogy. There is the programmers time, and there is the degree of freedom in the model called "time". These two times have nothing to do with one another.
Have you evidence that there is a "different time" that could be utilised?
No, becasue I am part of the model. No concept of the programmers "real" time has been incorporated within the model. I am unable to produce evidence. But then, God for me has always been a matter of faith.
If not then I suggest you properly define what you mean since time has definite properties that are observable.
Unless you are well versed in relativity, I would sugget that your "definite properties" are not so definite. And if you are, you will understand that time is just a degree of freedom with an odd signature in the metric. And "time elapsed" or "time experienced" is entirely dependent upon your track through space-time.
As for us living well away from any significant curvature, just try out Pythagoras... seems to work well enough. Try it in the early universe, or close to a neutron star or black hole, and you may be surprised. My evidence is all the evidence for GR amounted so far, and my interpretation of GR is sound in that I used to be trusted to teach it at a highly regarded academic institute.
So your experience of time is wholly dependent upon your local gravitational field (i.e. amount of space-time curavture) AND your velocity wrt a comoving object in the universe (Earth, Sun, Galaxy are all close enough to comoving).
To say that God's time must be the same time as ours, one must assume that God is following the same track through space-time as we are, and he is also located in a similar area of low curvature.
My definition of God does not locate him at any point in space or time. Space and time are model degrees of freedom, and he is the programmer, to return to my analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 07-31-2005 1:01 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by sidelined, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 57 by sidelined, posted 08-05-2005 10:05 AM cavediver has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 109 (228082)
07-31-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-29-2005 11:14 PM


Re: this is easily answered
That is because your claim is just not true. It can be demonstrated in computer models that you can get complexity via random variation, simple rules, and a filter of selection.
YOU seem to are unable to get beyond the concept that most things that are designed by people do not have a very specific attribute to them. That is, they are not self reproducing , self catalysing chemical reactions. When you have that, plus the filter of natural selection, you have complexity being formed.
You don't need a designer for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 11:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:22 AM ramoss has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 45 of 109 (228284)
08-01-2005 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
07-31-2005 5:23 AM


Re: "I Am"
cavediver
Unless you are well versed in relativity, I would suggest that your "definite properties" are not so definite. And if you are, you will understand that time is just a degree of freedom with an odd signature in the metric. And "time elapsed" or "time experienced" is entirely dependent upon your track through space-time.
What I am talking about is the relationship between time and space. Can you remove the time portion of the program and still run the program?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2005 5:23 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2005 4:21 AM sidelined 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