Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Objectively determining intelligent design

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:51:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Design" is self-evident from the nature of complexity. And when we eliminate the tangential philosophical and theological agendas we pretty much all agree that this is so.

So the questions, here, are not about the 'existence of design'. They are about the origin of that design, and the possible purpose. And that's where the various agendas bias the various arguments being proffered.

What is these days being called "intelligent design" is a theological proposition that is attempting to use the fact of complex design in the nature of our reality as evidence of 'divine intervention'. As they presume such complexity could not have occurred without it. And there is some unassailable reasoning to this proposition. But it is unfortunately being accompanied by a determined and dishonest campaign to interject a religious "god-concept" as the only possible source for this intelligent design. And for me, that destroys the integrity of those proffering this view.

It does not, however destroy the integrity of the basic proposition: that complexity inherently exhibits 'design', and design inherently infers will and/or intelligence. But for now, that's where the mystery remains. I see no reason to presume that this 'design' requires any ongoing supernatural manipulation, nor that it exhibits and sort of 'personality'. It is there, however, and it is a mystery, and that is undeniable.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 7:51:21 AM, PureX wrote:
"Design" is self-evident from the nature of complexity. And when we eliminate the tangential philosophical and theological agendas we pretty much all agree that this is so.

I don't think there's anything like a consensus regarding that being the case.

So the questions, here, are not about the 'existence of design'. They are about the origin of that design, and the possible purpose. And that's where the various agendas bias the various arguments being proffered.

What is these days being called "intelligent design" is a theological proposition that is attempting to use the fact of complex design in the nature of our reality as evidence of 'divine intervention'.

Other than some kind of "divine intervention", what else could account for a "designed" nature?

As they presume such complexity could not have occurred without it. And there is some unassailable reasoning to this proposition. But it is unfortunately being accompanied by a determined and dishonest campaign to interject a religious "god-concept" as the only possible source for this intelligent design. And for me, that destroys the integrity of those proffering this view.

You said yourself that the questions becomes "about the origin of that design, and the possible purpose", so why does speculation as to the nature of the designer destroy integrity?

It does not, however destroy the integrity of the basic proposition: that complexity inherently exhibits 'design', and design inherently infers will and/or intelligence. But for now, that's where the mystery remains. I see no reason to presume that this 'design' requires any ongoing supernatural manipulation,

If you are talking about some entity that is the designer of our universe, you pretty much have to be talking about the supernatural don't you?

nor that it exhibits and sort of 'personality'.

Doesn't your aforementioned "will and/or intelligence" imply some sort of personhood?

It is there, however, and it is a mystery, and that is undeniable.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who deny this.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 7:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Intelligence needs to be defined.

Design needs to be defined.

The process of origin of the artifact should ideally be observed, and the source of the design determined.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 8:58:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 7:17:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:51:21 AM, PureX wrote:
"Design" is self-evident from the nature of complexity. And when we eliminate the tangential philosophical and theological agendas we pretty much all agree that this is so.

I don't think there's anything like a consensus regarding that being the case.

Well, if you can find someone who can show how complexity can happen without design, I'd be interested to know how. Because, logically, chaos (chance) alone cannot account for it. Some limitations have to be imposed on that random chaos for anything but random chaos to occur. And whatever limits are imposed, will dictate (design) the possibilities that can and cannot result.

Other than some kind of "divine intervention", what else could account for a "designed" nature?

"Intervention" in what? There is no evidence so far as we know of any intervening going on within the phenomena of existence. The rules and nature of this phenomena appear to have been set from the start (whatever that start was) and existence as we know it is the resulting complex of events. So that whatever intelligent design there is, happened right at the outset, and has been incorporated and expressing itself ever since. This is why I disagree with the people who currently are proclaiming "intelligent design". And why I find them non-credible. It's also why I think that theists (and some atheists) who insist on "supernatural" evidence for God are irrational.

You said yourself that the questions becomes "about the origin of that design, and the possible purpose", so why does speculation as to the nature of the designer destroy integrity?

Speculations are both fun and human. But the current "intelligent design" crowd aren't presenting their speculations as speculations. They are presenting them as reality.

If you are talking about some entity that is the designer of our universe, you pretty much have to be talking about the supernatural don't you?

I am not talking about "entities". I'm talking about the mystery. And I am not talking about supernatural feats that define the nature and course of existence. I am talking about the 'metaphysical origins' of existence as we know it. Order, in the form of limitation, has been imposed on chaos. And from that imposition springs determined complexity. That determined complexity is how existence has come to exist as it does.

Doesn't your aforementioned "will and/or intelligence" imply some sort of personhood?

No, it implies a great mystery that is expressing intelligence, design, and purpose.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:56:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

All of which I find interesting. That very question haunts me. Whether or not a method finds the first life design or not is not what I find of great importance. But an objective measure for all the reasons you said. Writing was a break through for man kind. But thousands of years there was no writing and when it did develop independently we had a phonetic and pictorial alphabets. So not even that is totally recognizable. I think an argument from complexity is weak.

Look here http://www.thenakedscientists.com...

I think the strongest case will be when something does not match a natural process. When it is shaped in a way wind and water can not cut. etc...

The wheel was first used on toys. It took time to perfect a wheel to axle bearing surface area. The axle too big the friction too great. So a wheel and axle together can be a yes this was intelligently designed. But advanced cultures do not need a wheel. Egyptians and Aztecs did not have a wheel axle.

So it is a very interesting question. And it would remove that appeal to the obvious. It would be a measure conclusion follows likely designed. Such a method would be great.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 2:18:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:56:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

All of which I find interesting. That very question haunts me. Whether or not a method finds the first life design or not is not what I find of great importance. But an objective measure for all the reasons you said. Writing was a break through for man kind. But thousands of years there was no writing and when it did develop independently we had a phonetic and pictorial alphabets. So not even that is totally recognizable. I think an argument from complexity is weak.

Look here http://www.thenakedscientists.com...

I think the strongest case will be when something does not match a natural process. When it is shaped in a way wind and water can not cut. etc...

The wheel was first used on toys. It took time to perfect a wheel to axle bearing surface area. The axle too big the friction too great. So a wheel and axle together can be a yes this was intelligently designed. But advanced cultures do not need a wheel. Egyptians and Aztecs did not have a wheel axle.

So it is a very interesting question. And it would remove that appeal to the obvious. It would be a measure conclusion follows likely designed. Such a method would be great.

Just to add to what you and Envisage wrote I would like to note that intuition (ie the gut feeling) of the design is fairly good in telling whether an event or thing was designed or not. Not perfect but fairly good. The hardest part of design detection is knowing the purpose of the designer for the design. I will use my life as an example. When I was little I read a lot, my Dad's store had a lot of stuff and sometimes I would go in there (when he forgot to lock it or when I snuck in) and see stuff I read about (eg an engraving machine). I knew my Dad had a gun (from a convo he once had) but had never seen and one day I chanced on it. I knew it was dangerous from reading about it and despite being of a different make I could tell the trigger especially, and after fooling around with the gun as carefully as a child could I discovered the loading point etc. But I couldn't tell what specifically my Dad bought it for until I asked him. Applying this to design, pattern recognition in design is the easy part, but the hard part will always remain the purpose, this is veey clear in murder cases. Deciphering how a murder occurred from clues left is relatively easy. Deciphering the purpose is the harder part. Depending on the killer you may never understand why; especially when the killer does it just because.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 8:05:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 2:18:03 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 6/5/2014 12:56:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

All of which I find interesting. That very question haunts me. Whether or not a method finds the first life design or not is not what I find of great importance. But an objective measure for all the reasons you said. Writing was a break through for man kind. But thousands of years there was no writing and when it did develop independently we had a phonetic and pictorial alphabets. So not even that is totally recognizable. I think an argument from complexity is weak.

Look here http://www.thenakedscientists.com...

I think the strongest case will be when something does not match a natural process. When it is shaped in a way wind and water can not cut. etc...

The wheel was first used on toys. It took time to perfect a wheel to axle bearing surface area. The axle too big the friction too great. So a wheel and axle together can be a yes this was intelligently designed. But advanced cultures do not need a wheel. Egyptians and Aztecs did not have a wheel axle.

So it is a very interesting question. And it would remove that appeal to the obvious. It would be a measure conclusion follows likely designed. Such a method would be great.

Just to add to what you and Envisage wrote I would like to note that intuition (ie the gut feeling) of the design is fairly good in telling whether an event or thing was designed or not. Not perfect but fairly good. The hardest part of design detection is knowing the purpose of the designer for the design. I will use my life as an example. When I was little I read a lot, my Dad's store had a lot of stuff and sometimes I would go in there (when he forgot to lock it or when I snuck in) and see stuff I read about (eg an engraving machine). I knew my Dad had a gun (from a convo he once had) but had never seen and one day I chanced on it. I knew it was dangerous from reading about it and despite being of a different make I could tell the trigger especially, and after fooling around with the gun as carefully as a child could I discovered the loading point etc. But I couldn't tell what specifically my Dad bought it for until I asked him. Applying this to design, pattern recognition in design is the easy part, but the hard part will always remain the purpose, this is veey clear in murder cases. Deciphering how a murder occurred from clues left is relatively easy. Deciphering the purpose is the harder part. Depending on the killer you may never understand why; especially when the killer does it just because.

I think most of that is experience. That's why I linked the rock identification. 2 samples one man-made would just look like rocks. But we can tell them apart.

There are trail signs that are man made. And if you are not aware of what you're looking for you may pass right over them.

There's intentional trail signs to mark caches and stuff that could be 3 rocks atop each other, or 3 twigs braided together.

But these are learning from already knowns. Like some people think there are no straight lines or 90 degrees in nature. Which is generally true for large objects. But natural does have some crystalline structures that can exhibit both.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 10:51:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 2:18:03 AM, Iredia wrote:

Just to add to what you and Envisage wrote I would like to note that intuition (ie the gut feeling) of the design is fairly good in telling whether an event or thing was designed or not. Not perfect but fairly good. The hardest part of design detection is knowing the purpose of the designer for the design. I will use my life as an example ".

But I think what you're referring to is human design for human purposes. Nature is not designed as we would design it. And it serves purposes that we would not seek. Natural design happens in response to natural conditions. Human design happens in defiance of natural conditions. And I think this is how we recognize human design much of the time.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:50:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:51:47 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/5/2014 2:18:03 AM, Iredia wrote:

Just to add to what you and Envisage wrote I would like to note that intuition (ie the gut feeling) of the design is fairly good in telling whether an event or thing was designed or not. Not perfect but fairly good. The hardest part of design detection is knowing the purpose of the designer for the design. I will use my life as an example ".

But I think what you're referring to is human design for human purposes. Nature is not designed as we would design it. And it serves purposes that we would not seek. Natural design happens in response to natural conditions. Human design happens in defiance of natural conditions. And I think this is how we recognize human design much of the time.

Natural patterns like crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes etc happen in response to natural conditions. Natural designs as seen in life are clearly ID because the patterns are coded for. Natural processes have NEVER been seen to make codes. Intelligence is the requirement to making or deciphering coded systems eg in computers. So it is more reasonable to infer ID than a natural creative process.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 1:58:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:50:30 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:51:47 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/5/2014 2:18:03 AM, Iredia wrote:

Just to add to what you and Envisage wrote I would like to note that intuition (ie the gut feeling) of the design is fairly good in telling whether an event or thing was designed or not. Not perfect but fairly good. The hardest part of design detection is knowing the purpose of the designer for the design. I will use my life as an example ".

But I think what you're referring to is human design for human purposes. Nature is not designed as we would design it. And it serves purposes that we would not seek. Natural design happens in response to natural conditions. Human design happens in defiance of natural conditions. And I think this is how we recognize human design much of the time.

Natural patterns like crystals, snowflakes, sand dunes etc happen in response to natural conditions. Natural designs as seen in life are clearly ID because the patterns are coded for. Natural processes have NEVER been seen to make codes. Intelligence is the requirement to making or deciphering coded systems eg in computers. So it is more reasonable to infer ID than a natural creative process.

My point would be that the reality of "ID" is that it IS a natural occurring process. That's why I disagree with the religious "IDers"; because they keep wanting to infer that the design is being supernaturally imposed upon nature (and therefor stands as proof of their supernatural God). I would say that nature stands as an expressions of it's inherent design, and not that design has been imposed upon it.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:48:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

We are not good at picking out what is made via intelligent processes versus random processes. Just the fact that that our days are loaded and filled with intelligently created things, it is hard to imagine how randomness could put anything together.

Our short time frame we live plus the overwhelming anecdotal experience of living in man made things actually conditions us to be very pour judges of what could be made randomly versus intelligently.

Take something such as the cicada life cycle, which tend to be prime numbers. IE: 13 years & 17 years. Yes, it could be an intelligently designed via genetics or is it a result of natural selection because they get to avoid predators that have a periodic nature as well.

How does one objectively uncover that answer? Unless one can get evidence of the actual construction of the genetic codes of cicada's you can't prove it was ID. Thus the only argument that ID has is to say the genetic code is too complex to ever randomly form and eventually evolve the cicada.

The reality though is that we do not have enough information on the possibility and pathways life may have randomly formed. ID has a postulation something designed it and science is working on disproving the hypothesis by showing how it might randomly form. That is how logic works. On the other hand science has a hypothesis and ID is not working to disprove it. They just simply say that we have never seen it and it is complex so it can't be true. That is bad logic.

If ID wants to have a scientific approach it needs to start identifying and explaining in real scientific terms exactly why RNA, DNA or cyclical biochemical reactions could not be randomly formed and what stops it from ever happening.

It is hard to argue against probability if the possibility exists.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:50:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:48:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

We are not good at picking out what is made via intelligent processes versus random processes. Just the fact that that our days are loaded and filled with intelligently created things, it is hard to imagine how randomness could put anything together.

Our short time frame we live plus the overwhelming anecdotal experience of living in man made things actually conditions us to be very pour judges of what could be made randomly versus intelligently.

Take something such as the cicada life cycle, which tend to be prime numbers. IE: 13 years & 17 years. Yes, it could be an intelligently designed via genetics or is it a result of natural selection because they get to avoid predators that have a periodic nature as well.

Heh, did you see this on Numberphile?

I thought this was such an awesome quirk.

How does one objectively uncover that answer? Unless one can get evidence of the actual construction of the genetic codes of cicada's you can't prove it was ID. Thus the only argument that ID has is to say the genetic code is too complex to ever randomly form and eventually evolve the cicada.

The reality though is that we do not have enough information on the possibility and pathways life may have randomly formed. ID has a postulation something designed it and science is working on disproving the hypothesis by showing how it might randomly form. That is how logic works. On the other hand science has a hypothesis and ID is not working to disprove it. They just simply say that we have never seen it and it is complex so it can't be true. That is bad logic.

If ID wants to have a scientific approach it needs to start identifying and explaining in real scientific terms exactly why RNA, DNA or cyclical biochemical reactions could not be randomly formed and what stops it from ever happening.

It is hard to argue against probability if the possibility exists.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 4:10:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:48:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

We are not good at picking out what is made via intelligent processes versus random processes. Just the fact that that our days are loaded and filled with intelligently created things, it is hard to imagine how randomness could put anything together.

Our short time frame we live plus the overwhelming anecdotal experience of living in man made things actually conditions us to be very pour judges of what could be made randomly versus intelligently.

Take something such as the cicada life cycle, which tend to be prime numbers. IE: 13 years & 17 years. Yes, it could be an intelligently designed via genetics or is it a result of natural selection because they get to avoid predators that have a periodic nature as well.

How does one objectively uncover that answer? Unless one can get evidence of the actual construction of the genetic codes of cicada's you can't prove it was ID. Thus the only argument that ID has is to say the genetic code is too complex to ever randomly form and eventually evolve the cicada.

The reality though is that we do not have enough information on the possibility and pathways life may have randomly formed. ID has a postulation something designed it and science is working on disproving the hypothesis by showing how it might randomly form. That is how logic works. On the other hand science has a hypothesis and ID is not working to disprove it. They just simply say that we have never seen it and it is complex so it can't be true. That is bad logic.

If ID wants to have a scientific approach it needs to start identifying and explaining in real scientific terms exactly why RNA, DNA or cyclical biochemical reactions could not be randomly formed and what stops it from ever happening.

It is hard to argue against probability if the possibility exists.

It's how Atheism works not logic. What is logical is if what seems to be true is true until challenged, And you just admitted all information systems we know of are either intelligently designed or appears to be intelligently designed, Then guess what that means?

It means the default position is intelligently designed. HOW is it the default hypothesis?

Well if you Atheist want to be intellectually consistent, and you constantly confuse null hypothesis with default hypothesis lets look at what a ull hypothesis is (if it is true which is debateable): Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true, when the study is on a random representative sample. The null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables in the population from which the sample is selected. If the data-set of a random representative sample is very unlikely relative to the null hypothesis, defined as being part of a class of sets of data that only rarely will be observed, the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false.

So if every thing we see that incorporates a system of data encoding and decoding is intelligently designed and nothing else except life exhibit this then the null hypothesis is a statistical Intelligently Design Hypothesis in this scenario.

Nope just grab and believe in what ever non founded ideology that makes a god unnecessary or impossible.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 7:05:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 8:58:00 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:17:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2014 7:51:21 AM, PureX wrote:
"Design" is self-evident from the nature of complexity. And when we eliminate the tangential philosophical and theological agendas we pretty much all agree that this is so.

I don't think there's anything like a consensus regarding that being the case.

Well, if you can find someone who can show how complexity can happen without design, I'd be interested to know how. Because, logically, chaos (chance) alone cannot account for it. Some limitations have to be imposed on that random chaos for anything but random chaos to occur. And whatever limits are imposed, will dictate (design) the possibilities that can and cannot result.

We are talking about pattern recognition here, aren"t we? You are saying that the universe and life exhibit patterns that are best explained by an intelligent cause that displays the characteristics of will and purpose, and you don"t think there is anybody out there that believes it could be better explained by an undirected process such as natural selection"seriously?

Other than some kind of "divine intervention", what else could account for a "designed" nature?

"Intervention" in what?

Intervention in nature, design is a verb, if nature is "designed", something acted upon nature, and if it acted upon nature in the process of creation, then it is outside of, or transcendent to, nature, which is by definition, supernatural.

There is no evidence so far as we know of any intervening going on within the phenomena of existence.

You are arguing for the "intelligent design" of nature, that itself is evidence of some kind of intervening by some kind of intelligence.

The rules and nature of this phenomena appear to have been set from the start (whatever that start was) and existence as we know it is the resulting complex of events. So that whatever intelligent design there is, happened right at the outset, and has been incorporated and expressing itself ever since.

If it happened at the initial point of creation (whatever that start was), it still happened, and your argument is that something which existed prior to creation and possessed the qualities of intelligence, will, and purpose, acted upon nature to make it designed, that certainly sounds like you are arguing for some kind of divine intervention to me.

This is why I disagree with the people who currently are proclaiming "intelligent design".

Yeah, except for you don"t actually "disagree with the people who currently are proclaiming "intelligent design"".

And why I find them non-credible. It's also why I think that theists (and some atheists) who insist on "supernatural" evidence for God are irrational.

The entire thrust of the intelligent design movement is an attempt to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science while establishing scientific credibility by deliberately avoiding assigning a personality to the postulated designer and claiming it to be an evidence-based scientific theory about the origin of the universe and life. You are making the same exact declarations along with a pretty lame attempt to distance yourself from the others that make those same claims.

The consensus opinion of the scientific community, educators, philosophers, and lawmakers is that ID is a religious argument which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. I really don"t think you can effectively make the exact same claims but make them sound different by saying you agree with the consensus opinion that those who make those claims are not being scientific. As far as I can tell, the defining characteristic of the movement is an "us/them" mentality, you want to maintain that "us/them" mentality but proclaim that you are on the better side of that "us/them divide, that strikes me as disingenuous.

Here"s the problem with the ID approach, which is your approach; you both want to interpret the data in terms of purposes, and still claim it is strictly scientific. But the cornerstone of the scientific method is methodological naturalism, and that entails the systematic denial that "true" knowledge can be arrived at by interpreting phenomenon in terms of Aristotle"s final causes " that is to say, of "purpose. Science can address efficient causes alone, when you introduce purpose, and when you challenge methodological naturalism, you are denying the foundational characteristic that constitutes the scientific approach. There"s nothing wrong with that, Aristotle also said "to be truly rational is to see where the limits of reason lie". But proclaiming the ID position while also proclaiming they are the "them" of your "us/them" thinking is deceptive at best.

You said yourself that the questions becomes "about the origin of that design, and the possible purpose", so why does speculation as to the nature of the designer destroy integrity?

Speculations are both fun and human. But the current "intelligent design" crowd aren't presenting their speculations as speculations. They are presenting them as reality.

Yeah, but then again, that"s what science does, create hypotheses with the intent to devise a system of explaining the data, and if the hypothesis matches the data then it can be said to be true of reality. You are also claiming your own position (which is the ID crowd"s position), is true to reality aren"t you?

If you are talking about some entity that is the designer of our universe, you pretty much have to be talking about the supernatural don't you?

I am not talking about "entities". I'm talking about the mystery.

Oh, I see, yeah, that"s completely different, because, you know, you never see theists saying that the divine is mysterious, that just never happens lol.

And I am not talking about supernatural feats that define the nature and course of existence.

Yes you are, you are saying that something that possesses intelligence, will, and purpose, independent of nature but acting on nature in such a way that defines nature as "designed", and claiming that it explains the complexity that has developed in the course of existence.

I am talking about the 'metaphysical origins' of existence as we know it. Order, in the form of limitation, has been imposed on chaos. And from that imposition springs determined complexity. That determined complexity is how existence has come to exist as it does.

So the beginning was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of determined complexity moved on the face of the waters. And that determined complexity said let there be light and there was light. And the determined complexity saw the light, that it was good. Is that what you are saying?

Doesn't your aforementioned "will and/or intelligence" imply some sort of personhood?

No, it implies a great mystery that is expressing intelligence, design, and purpose.

I see, your position is different than the theistic position because when you postulate the supernatural you say it is a great mystery, and theists never say the supernatural is a great mystery, got it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 8:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 4:10:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2014 3:48:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

We are not good at picking out what is made via intelligent processes versus random processes. Just the fact that that our days are loaded and filled with intelligently created things, it is hard to imagine how randomness could put anything together.

Our short time frame we live plus the overwhelming anecdotal experience of living in man made things actually conditions us to be very pour judges of what could be made randomly versus intelligently.

Take something such as the cicada life cycle, which tend to be prime numbers. IE: 13 years & 17 years. Yes, it could be an intelligently designed via genetics or is it a result of natural selection because they get to avoid predators that have a periodic nature as well.

How does one objectively uncover that answer? Unless one can get evidence of the actual construction of the genetic codes of cicada's you can't prove it was ID. Thus the only argument that ID has is to say the genetic code is too complex to ever randomly form and eventually evolve the cicada.

The reality though is that we do not have enough information on the possibility and pathways life may have randomly formed. ID has a postulation something designed it and science is working on disproving the hypothesis by showing how it might randomly form. That is how logic works. On the other hand science has a hypothesis and ID is not working to disprove it. They just simply say that we have never seen it and it is complex so it can't be true. That is bad logic.

If ID wants to have a scientific approach it needs to start identifying and explaining in real scientific terms exactly why RNA, DNA or cyclical biochemical reactions could not be randomly formed and what stops it from ever happening.

It is hard to argue against probability if the possibility exists.

It's how Atheism works not logic. What is logical is if what seems to be true is true until challenged, And you just admitted all information systems we know of are either intelligently designed or appears to be intelligently designed, Then guess what that means?

I did not admit that all informational systems were intelligently designed. I said since most of it is hard for people to imagine how it can be otherwise.

I gave a good example of an information system that naturally formed with no intelligence, an almost perfect 50 ft circle of ice rotating in a river. Every edge had to measure equal distance to the center. I also provided evidence other postings about self replicating vortexes in fluid dynamics. Both examples contain information and it does not mean they were intelligently designed.


It means the default position is intelligently designed. HOW is it the default hypothesis?

The default position is not intelligently design. Both intelligent and non-intelligent formation of complex things happen, we just happen to have much much more intelligently designed things surrounding us. This is not an argument of which trumps the other, both exist so all the rest of the below items are irrelevant.

Science will continue to investigate discovering possible way that life could randomly formed. If it is impossible it will never be found. On the other hand ID will continue to focus on arguing obtuse nonsense such as the impossibility for a tornado to assemble a battleship.

Well if you Atheist want to be intellectually consistent, and you constantly confuse null hypothesis with default hypothesis lets look at what a ull hypothesis is (if it is true which is debateable): Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true, when the study is on a random representative sample. The null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables in the population from which the sample is selected. If the data-set of a random representative sample is very unlikely relative to the null hypothesis, defined as being part of a class of sets of data that only rarely will be observed, the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false.

So if every thing we see that incorporates a system of data encoding and decoding is intelligently designed and nothing else except life exhibit this then the null hypothesis is a statistical Intelligently Design Hypothesis in this scenario.

Nope just grab and believe in what ever non founded ideology that makes a god unnecessary or impossible.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:30:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 8:58:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 4:10:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/5/2014 3:48:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/3/2014 12:18:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Intelligent Design is something that has genuinely sparked my interest in recent months, originally because of the religious movement, but now more recently because it seems apparent that there simply isn't a good objective method of determining whether or not something is intelligently designed.

This may sound strange, because of course we humans are very good at picking out signs that things were designed, or crafted/changed by sentient beings. But it's rather apparent we humans do this largely by contrasting with known traits that designed stuff we experience in our world, by known sentient beings, and looking for patterns.

However, let's assume an alien civilization once existed on a different planet, which have since long died out. This civilization became intelligent and learned their laws of ohysics, logic, and design and technology completely independently. Would we be able to objectively determine that artifacts found there were indeed intelligently designed?

This seems less obvious, I imagine we would instinctively, assuming that this civilization developed similar processes to design and. Build things. A wheel is always going to be efficient as a wheel for example. But it seems that all arguments for design as they stand today are merely negative arguments against non-intelligent processes.

I would imagine that finding regular superficial written patterns, in organised conformations (such as writing on walls, etc) would be strong evidence of an intelligence present, but only because natural processes very poorly account for such, and we have abundant evidence that intelligent human civilizations tend to create such artifacts as well.

The most common argument that intelligent design is used for is of course when applied to life, in which the grey area is far more substantial. And indeed in light of current evidence it it pretty clear any and all attempts to establish that life itself was intelligently designed falls flat on their faces.

.... But it would be interesting to have an objective theory/method by which we would make a quantitative assessment of the 'designed-ness' of a human being, as compared with say a car.

I imagine that self-recitative feedback mechanisms would need to be accounted for in such an analysis (which would account for evolution of course), but... Yeah.

/rant Thoughts?

We are not good at picking out what is made via intelligent processes versus random processes. Just the fact that that our days are loaded and filled with intelligently created things, it is hard to imagine how randomness could put anything together.

Our short time frame we live plus the overwhelming anecdotal experience of living in man made things actually conditions us to be very pour judges of what could be made randomly versus intelligently.

Take something such as the cicada life cycle, which tend to be prime numbers. IE: 13 years & 17 years. Yes, it could be an intelligently designed via genetics or is it a result of natural selection because they get to avoid predators that have a periodic nature as well.

How does one objectively uncover that answer? Unless one can get evidence of the actual construction of the genetic codes of cicada's you can't prove it was ID. Thus the only argument that ID has is to say the genetic code is too complex to ever randomly form and eventually evolve the cicada.

The reality though is that we do not have enough information on the possibility and pathways life may have randomly formed. ID has a postulation something designed it and science is working on disproving the hypothesis by showing how it might randomly form. That is how logic works. On the other hand science has a hypothesis and ID is not working to disprove it. They just simply say that we have never seen it and it is complex so it can't be true. That is bad logic.

If ID wants to have a scientific approach it needs to start identifying and explaining in real scientific terms exactly why RNA, DNA or cyclical biochemical reactions could not be randomly formed and what stops it from ever happening.

It is hard to argue against probability if the possibility exists.

It's how Atheism works not logic. What is logical is if what seems to be true is true until challenged, And you just admitted all information systems we know of are either intelligently designed or appears to be intelligently designed, Then guess what that means?

I did not admit that all informational systems were intelligently designed. I said since most of it is hard for people to imagine how it can be otherwise.

I gave a good example of an information system that naturally formed with no intelligence, an almost perfect 50 ft circle of ice rotating in a river. Every edge had to measure equal distance to the center. I also provided evidence other postings about self replicating vortexes in fluid dynamics. Both examples contain information and it does not mean they were intelligently designed.


It means the default position is intelligently designed. HOW is it the default hypothesis?

The default position is not intelligently design. Both intelligent and non-intelligent formation of complex things happen, we just happen to have much much more intelligently designed things surrounding us. This is not an argument of which trumps the other, both exist so all the rest of the below items are irrelevant.

Science will continue to investigate discovering possible way that life could randomly formed. If it is impossible it will never be found. On the other hand ID will continue to focus on arguing obtuse nonsense such as the impossibility for a tornado to assemble a battleship.

Well if you Atheist want to be intellectually consistent, and you constantly confuse null hypothesis with default hypothesis lets look at what a ull hypothesis is (if it is true which is debateable): Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true, when the study is on a random representative sample. The null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables in the population from which the sample is selected. If the data-set of a random representative sample is very unlikely relative to the null hypothesis, defined as being part of a class of sets of data that only rarely will be observed, the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false.

So if every thing we see that incorporates a system of data encoding and decoding is intelligently designed and nothing else except life exhibit this then the null hypothesis is a statistical Intelligently Design Hypothesis in this scenario.

Nope just grab and believe in what ever non founded ideology that makes a god unnecessary or impossible.

When does an abiotic origin of life that can never be found, be found sufficient to throw one's backing behind intelligently constructed?

Life replicates itself in this environment. So a means to produce life is and will not be unheard of. But when dot he chances of a perfectly balance environment of UV, kinetic vortexes, material, heat, pressure become over whelming for any one to accept? never. Atheist who don't want a chance of god to be needed, will hold to an an astronomical chance of puddles, perfect cloud cover in alcohol (Biological produced) cavities, near underwater vents with chemicals from meteorites. In every single other field of study a chance of 1 out of 10000+ is deemed impossible.

Nope in
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:33:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
nope an inconsistent acceptance and reasoning are required to be Atheistic. Of course all can see the fruit such people bare. Just so you know every genius and every person that has ever contributed to society on a positive note... Has always been a rebel.

Food for thought.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 6:55:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 7:05:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:58:00 PM, PureX wrote:

We are talking about pattern recognition here, aren"t we? You are saying that the universe and life exhibit patterns that are best explained by an intelligent cause that displays the characteristics of will and purpose, and you don"t think there is anybody out there that believes it could be better explained by an undirected process such as natural selection"seriously?

I don't see how we could call natural selection "undirected" when the selections are being made based on specific conditions and with specific intentions.

Intervention in nature, design is a verb, if nature is "designed", something acted upon nature, and if it acted upon nature in the process of creation, then it is outside of, or transcendent to, nature, which is by definition, supernatural.

There was no nature to be acted upon. And there would be none without the "design". The design was built in from the beginning, by the limitations inherent to the way energy could and could not express itself. The origin of that energy, and it's inherent limitations, is a complete mystery to us, and yet energy could reasonably be defined as 'will', while the limitations inherent within that energy could be defined is 'intent'. And from that will and intent, comes all that exists.

I don't disagree with theists characterizing this will and intent as the act of an "intelligent creator God". I just disagree with the assertion that God is still meddling with it, and that this meddling proves that God exists.

There is no evidence so far as we know of any intervening going on within the phenomena of existence.

You are arguing for the "intelligent design" of nature, that itself is evidence of some kind of intervening by some kind of intelligence.

There is no "intervening" is going on. Existence is the natural expression of "God's will and intent".

The rules and nature of this phenomena appear to have been set from the start (whatever that start was) and existence as we know it is the resulting complex of events. So that whatever intelligent design there is, happened right at the outset, and has been incorporated and expressing itself ever since.

If it happened at the initial point of creation (whatever that start was), it still happened, and your argument is that something which existed prior to creation and possessed the qualities of intelligence, will, and purpose, acted upon nature to make it designed, that certainly sounds like you are arguing for some kind of divine intervention to me.

You keep insisting on using the term "acted upon nature". But there was no nature to act upon. Nature is the expressed result of this mysterious will and intent. Existence is an ongoing event that was set in motion by what we call "God". But we have no idea what that "God" is. We only see that god's will, expressed as energy, and intent, expressed in the limitations being imposed on that energy, and we presume that the purpose must be the existential result of these.

There is nothing illogical or unreasonable or unscientific about this view of reality, so long as we remember that the term "God" is referring to a great metaphysical mystery. However, projecting conditions, and personalities, and 'being' onto this mystery, as religions so often do, separates religion from science. And this is why "intelligent design" as the religionists present it is both dishonest and misleading.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 7:22:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 7:05:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/4/2014 8:58:00 PM, PureX wrote:

Here"s the problem with the ID approach, which is your approach; you both want to interpret the data in terms of purposes, and still claim it is strictly scientific. But the cornerstone of the scientific method is methodological naturalism, and that entails the systematic denial that "true" knowledge can be arrived at by interpreting phenomenon in terms of Aristotle"s final causes " that is to say, of "purpose. Science can address efficient causes alone, when you introduce purpose, and when you challenge methodological naturalism, you are denying the foundational characteristic that constitutes the scientific approach. There"s nothing wrong with that, Aristotle also said "to be truly rational is to see where the limits of reason lie". But proclaiming the ID position while also proclaiming they are the "them" of your "us/them" thinking is deceptive at best.

Science is a tool, and so it has it's limitations. And we humans have other tools that we can use to can take us places, intellectually, that science cannot. Hammers and saws are excellent tools for building houses, but by themselves, they cannot build us a house. We need other tools, like planing, and execution, and material specs to work with.

Science, by itself, will never reveal the source, sustenance, or purpose of existence. And yet it's these that we really want to know. Science can help, but so can philosophy, and theology, and art, etc.,. I think where people run into trouble is when they make a kind of false idol out of one of these methodologies, and then try to maintain that idol by discrediting the other methodologies. Atheists have a tendency to do this with science, just as theists tend to do it with their religion. But the answers we are seeking will require that we use all these tools and endeavors, each in their own appropriate ways. And even then, we may never really find the answers we seek.

I take from the theists that which makes sense according to science, just as I take from art that which the other two endeavors cannot see or express. So I agree with the theists to an extent about intelligent design and metaphysics. But I leave them behind when they seek to abuse or discredit scientific fact and methodology to assert their religious proclivities. This isn't an 'either/or' scenario. We need to learn how to use all the tools if we ever want to build that house.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 7:46:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 12:30:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


When does an abiotic origin of life that can never be found, be found sufficient to throw one's backing behind intelligently constructed?

When there is full understanding of how "life" works and an appropriate amount of time and resources have been applied to uncovering how it may have randomly emerged. We have only in the last 30 years have started unraveling how cells operate and we are still learning. It would be many decades before one could close the investigation with confidence if it does not turn anything up.

Life replicates itself in this environment. So a means to produce life is and will not be unheard of. But when dot he chances of a perfectly balance environment of UV, kinetic vortexes, material, heat, pressure become over whelming for any one to accept? never. Atheist who don't want a chance of god to be needed, will hold to an an astronomical chance of puddles, perfect cloud cover in alcohol (Biological produced) cavities, near underwater vents with chemicals from meteorit

Atheists are like anybody else. We all have opinion and filter beliefs to fit the opinion. I don't expect that it is much different than a theist who does the same thing, which is why the only true answer to the deity question is "I don't really know, but I suspect......" Of course theists are trained that such thinking is a betrayal to their belief and God so they can not say such things. Ever notice how pretty most formal religions have the requirement of believing in it for it to work?
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 8:10:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 7:46:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:30:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


When does an abiotic origin of life that can never be found, be found sufficient to throw one's backing behind intelligently constructed?

When there is full understanding of how "life" works and an appropriate amount of time and resources have been applied to uncovering how it may have randomly emerged. We have only in the last 30 years have started unraveling how cells operate and we are still learning. It would be many decades before one could close the investigation with confidence if it does not turn anything up.


Doubtful. We are already learning a lot. The chemistry evolved for us to replicate even small parts of life, are extremely elegant and sophisticated.

I've already seen people refer to an experiment in which 2 of 4 nucleotides were made, as if that was proof God is not needed. Let's for a second ignore that there seems to be a constant mindset with Atheist is that if we can replicate something it means the natural occurrence is some how devoid of it's genuine essence. Meaning how is faking something, make the real thing less genuine.

An artist forging a Rembrandt does not make the original worthless.

But I digress great experiment. And it showed a finely tuned process was needed to make the nucleotides with controlled and timed bursts of UV radiation, filtering and more.

I think some one has to be wishful or delusional thinking to read that experiment and think it is proof for a spontaneous natural process to produce life.

But that doesn't keep a news article coming out every month saying "Scientist create life in laboratory" I know the world hates god, so the repetitive message sending is to get people to believe a lie.

I bet if I ask a common person off the street, "how close have we come to making life in a lab?" They will say everything from a bacteria to a goat totally from scratch.


Life replicates itself in this environment. So a means to produce life is and will not be unheard of. But when dot he chances of a perfectly balance environment of UV, kinetic vortexes, material, heat, pressure become over whelming for any one to accept? never. Atheist who don't want a chance of god to be needed, will hold to an an astronomical chance of puddles, perfect cloud cover in alcohol (Biological produced) cavities, near underwater vents with chemicals from meteorit

Atheists are like anybody else. We all have opinion and filter beliefs to fit the opinion. I don't expect that it is much different than a theist who does the same thing, which is why the only true answer to the deity question is "I don't really know, but I suspect......" Of course theists are trained that such thinking is a betrayal to their belief and God so they can not say such things. Ever notice how pretty most formal religions have the requirement of believing in it for it to work?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 8:33:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.

Information systems do not need to be complex. And complex does not automatically mean information system.

An information system, think of a hard drive, collects, stores, processes data.

This is very different than the raw data that is in a ice flow or the paths of the planets.

Life has other information systems than DNA. All kinds of animals talk and use scent to convey messages of food or warnings. It is an information system because, let's take DNA, it stores and processes information. This storing follows a structure or syntax.

An ice flow is a natural amalgamation of other packs. There may be a pattern but not a syntax. Not an encoding of data.

An encoding is taking an object and transferring characteristics of it to the abstract.

The ice flow does not take data in it and transfer that data to an abstract code. But in DNA four nucleotides form a sequence that describes a 3 dimensional object. And this sequence is not a mold of the 3d object (protein). No instructions to make the 3d object.

Very different than ice flow. All I talked about in the other thread slo1 when you brought that up was material identification based on construction of the structure. Not on information.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 9:02:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Say we found an alien stop sign. It could be nothing more than a red stone. With out knowing purpose we could not determine the information system used. The message of the sign would be an abstract symbol of the physical command to stop.

But we could know it was alien made if it was in a shape or style not naturally occurring for the type of stone it was.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 11:03:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 8:33:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.

Information systems do not need to be complex. And complex does not automatically mean information system.

An information system, think of a hard drive, collects, stores, processes data.

This is very different than the raw data that is in a ice flow or the paths of the planets.

Life has other information systems than DNA. All kinds of animals talk and use scent to convey messages of food or warnings. It is an information system because, let's take DNA, it stores and processes information. This storing follows a structure or syntax.

An ice flow is a natural amalgamation of other packs. There may be a pattern but not a syntax. Not an encoding of data.

An encoding is taking an object and transferring characteristics of it to the abstract.

The ice flow does not take data in it and transfer that data to an abstract code. But in DNA four nucleotides form a sequence that describes a 3 dimensional object. And this sequence is not a mold of the 3d object (protein). No instructions to make the 3d object.

Very different than ice flow. All I talked about in the other thread slo1 when you brought that up was material identification based on construction of the structure. Not on information.

That is just you choosing and picking information and applying arbitrary value on the information.

The mold (ice on river bank) transferred data to the collection of ice chunk. Along with the water flow and eddies that transfer of data successfully created an almost perfect circle.

The entire purpose of a intelligently designed mold is to transfer data . IE: I create a mold to create a bar of gold. The shape of the mold is transferred to gold. AKA information transfer. Why is it when the mold is created randomly and it transfers the data to another object it is less spectacular or less true than the intelligently designed data transfer?

The second problem is that you describe DNA like it is intelligent in itself. It is not intelligent.

When one looks at functions such as creating and folding a protein the data being exchanged is analogous to how the ice form on the edge of the river transferred data to the collection of ice to form a circle.

It is a bio chemical and physical process and just like an ice circle forming in the river, it does not happen unless the right conditions such as the right molecules and chemicals exist in the cell.

Data can be transferred regardless if the transfer was intentional or not. Again data transferring from the ice mold on the edge to the matter forming the circle does not imply it was intentional nor intelligent. The same thing applies to DNA and how it transfers its chemical make up to mRNA and ultimately a protein.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:15:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 11:03:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 8:33:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.

Information systems do not need to be complex. And complex does not automatically mean information system.

An information system, think of a hard drive, collects, stores, processes data.

This is very different than the raw data that is in a ice flow or the paths of the planets.

Life has other information systems than DNA. All kinds of animals talk and use scent to convey messages of food or warnings. It is an information system because, let's take DNA, it stores and processes information. This storing follows a structure or syntax.

An ice flow is a natural amalgamation of other packs. There may be a pattern but not a syntax. Not an encoding of data.

An encoding is taking an object and transferring characteristics of it to the abstract.

The ice flow does not take data in it and transfer that data to an abstract code. But in DNA four nucleotides form a sequence that describes a 3 dimensional object. And this sequence is not a mold of the 3d object (protein). No instructions to make the 3d object.

Very different than ice flow. All I talked about in the other thread slo1 when you brought that up was material identification based on construction of the structure. Not on information.

That is just you choosing and picking information and applying arbitrary value on the information.

The mold (ice on river bank) transferred data to the collection of ice chunk. Along with the water flow and eddies that transfer of data successfully created an almost perfect circle.

The entire purpose of a intelligently designed mold is to transfer data . IE: I create a mold to create a bar of gold. The shape of the mold is transferred to gold. AKA information transfer. Why is it when the mold is created randomly and it transfers the data to another object it is less spectacular or less true than the intelligently designed data transfer?

The second problem is that you describe DNA like it is intelligent in itself. It is not intelligent.

When one looks at functions such as creating and folding a protein the data being exchanged is analogous to how the ice form on the edge of the river transferred data to the collection of ice to form a circle.

It is a bio chemical and physical process and just like an ice circle forming in the river, it does not happen unless the right conditions such as the right molecules and chemicals exist in the cell.

Data can be transferred regardless if the transfer was intentional or not. Again data transferring from the ice mold on the edge to the matter forming the circle does not imply it was intentional nor intelligent. The same thing applies to DNA and how it transfers its chemical make up to mRNA and ultimately a protein.

I was saying a mold is not information processing. Encoding comes from abstract representation of an object. you don't have this in molds but you do have it in DNA
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:46:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 12:15:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 11:03:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 8:33:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.

Information systems do not need to be complex. And complex does not automatically mean information system.

An information system, think of a hard drive, collects, stores, processes data.

This is very different than the raw data that is in a ice flow or the paths of the planets.

Life has other information systems than DNA. All kinds of animals talk and use scent to convey messages of food or warnings. It is an information system because, let's take DNA, it stores and processes information. This storing follows a structure or syntax.

An ice flow is a natural amalgamation of other packs. There may be a pattern but not a syntax. Not an encoding of data.

An encoding is taking an object and transferring characteristics of it to the abstract.

The ice flow does not take data in it and transfer that data to an abstract code. But in DNA four nucleotides form a sequence that describes a 3 dimensional object. And this sequence is not a mold of the 3d object (protein). No instructions to make the 3d object.

Very different than ice flow. All I talked about in the other thread slo1 when you brought that up was material identification based on construction of the structure. Not on information.

That is just you choosing and picking information and applying arbitrary value on the information.

The mold (ice on river bank) transferred data to the collection of ice chunk. Along with the water flow and eddies that transfer of data successfully created an almost perfect circle.

The entire purpose of a intelligently designed mold is to transfer data . IE: I create a mold to create a bar of gold. The shape of the mold is transferred to gold. AKA information transfer. Why is it when the mold is created randomly and it transfers the data to another object it is less spectacular or less true than the intelligently designed data transfer?

The second problem is that you describe DNA like it is intelligent in itself. It is not intelligent.

When one looks at functions such as creating and folding a protein the data being exchanged is analogous to how the ice form on the edge of the river transferred data to the collection of ice to form a circle.

It is a bio chemical and physical process and just like an ice circle forming in the river, it does not happen unless the right conditions such as the right molecules and chemicals exist in the cell.

Data can be transferred regardless if the transfer was intentional or not. Again data transferring from the ice mold on the edge to the matter forming the circle does not imply it was intentional nor intelligent. The same thing applies to DNA and how it transfers its chemical make up to mRNA and ultimately a protein.

I was saying a mold is not information processing. Encoding comes from abstract representation of an object. you don't have this in molds but you do have it in DNA

How is DNA in a single cell organism an abstract representation of itself? It is nothing more than a collection of molecules that allows a repeatable chemical and mechanical reactions.

You are assigning an assumptive attribute to the information that it contains by implying it needed to be programmed by something. Again why does the information it contains need to be "programmed" but the information to create a perfect circle naturally does not?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 12:59:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 12:46:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 12:15:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 11:03:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/6/2014 8:33:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/6/2014 7:58:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
The other item on data and information.

I give a naturally occurring example of a perfect circle of ice forming and rotating in the river. When you see it you can see how the ice on the edge of the bank formed a guide so when an ice chunk floated down the river it would hit the edge of the ice form which is shaped like an arc of a circle, travel the arch and then be in an eddy so the ice continuously looped back and would travel the same path.

Once enough ice got trapped in this loop it started forming the circle. Within that circle is information. The arc of the ice along the bank contained information and passed the information into the formation of this circle of ice.

It created a ice circle of 50 feet diameter. The information of the ice arc along the bank cold not have created a 3 feet diameter circle unless its information, size were of the proper dimension.

In that example how can you objectively measure that the data and information involved in the creation of that ice circle is from random dumb events versus intelligently designed?

It is possible the data and information in DNA which becomes self replicating is just like the data in the ice arc along the bank which formed the circle. Just because data and information exists it does not automatically mean the data had to intelligently come about.

Information systems do not need to be complex. And complex does not automatically mean information system.

An information system, think of a hard drive, collects, stores, processes data.

This is very different than the raw data that is in a ice flow or the paths of the planets.

Life has other information systems than DNA. All kinds of animals talk and use scent to convey messages of food or warnings. It is an information system because, let's take DNA, it stores and processes information. This storing follows a structure or syntax.

An ice flow is a natural amalgamation of other packs. There may be a pattern but not a syntax. Not an encoding of data.

An encoding is taking an object and transferring characteristics of it to the abstract.

The ice flow does not take data in it and transfer that data to an abstract code. But in DNA four nucleotides form a sequence that describes a 3 dimensional object. And this sequence is not a mold of the 3d object (protein). No instructions to make the 3d object.

Very different than ice flow. All I talked about in the other thread slo1 when you brought that up was material identification based on construction of the structure. Not on information.

That is just you choosing and picking information and applying arbitrary value on the information.

The mold (ice on river bank) transferred data to the collection of ice chunk. Along with the water flow and eddies that transfer of data successfully created an almost perfect circle.

The entire purpose of a intelligently designed mold is to transfer data . IE: I create a mold to create a bar of gold. The shape of the mold is transferred to gold. AKA information transfer. Why is it when the mold is created randomly and it transfers the data to another object it is less spectacular or less true than the intelligently designed data transfer?

The second problem is that you describe DNA like it is intelligent in itself. It is not intelligent.

When one looks at functions such as creating and folding a protein the data being exchanged is analogous to how the ice form on the edge of the river transferred data to the collection of ice to form a circle.

It is a bio chemical and physical process and just like an ice circle forming in the river, it does not happen unless the right conditions such as the right molecules and chemicals exist in the cell.

Data can be transferred regardless if the transfer was intentional or not. Again data transferring from the ice mold on the edge to the matter forming the circle does not imply it was intentional nor intelligent. The same thing applies to DNA and how it transfers its chemical make up to mRNA and ultimately a protein.

I was saying a mold is not information processing. Encoding comes from abstract representation of an object. you don't have this in molds but you do have it in DNA

How is DNA in a single cell organism an abstract representation of itself? It is nothing more than a collection of molecules that allows a repeatable chemical and mechanical reactions.

You are assigning an assumptive attribute to the information that it contains by implying it needed to be programmed by something. Again why does the information it contains need to be "programmed" but the information to create a perfect circle naturally does not?

If I write on a piece of paper:

Cut 4 boards 8in x 6in long
Paste long side to long side
Cut 2 6in by 6in boards
Glue these board to top and bottom

That is an abstract representation of a BOX.

DNA uses a coding system of 4 chemicals to instruct the construction of other molecules that ARE NOT composed of the same four letters. Hence ENCODING.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 6:43:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 7:46:56 AM, slo1 wrote:

Atheists are like anybody else. We all have opinion and filter beliefs to fit the opinion. I don't expect that it is much different than a theist who does the same thing, which is why the only true answer to the deity question is "I don't really know, but I suspect......" Of course theists are trained that such thinking is a betrayal to their belief and God so they can not say such things. Ever notice how pretty most formal religions have the requirement of believing in it for it to work?

I agree with this, except that I would point out that there are other, more important reasons for religions having the requirement of our believing in it for it to work. Faith, itself, is a powerful tool. It can be used to abuse and control the weak, but it can also be used to heal them and change them and make them strong.

Also, keep in mind that very few people adopt a religious dogma that they don't already believe. So that when you hear some fool preaching about a God of violence, vengeance, and bigotry, realize that person was a violent, vengeful bigot of his own accord, who is choosing a religious dogma that resonates with his own twisted concepts of truth and reality. It's not the dogma creating him, it's him creating the dogma.