Intelligent Design

[uruk]

So, who planted the Universal seed then? And what nourished it and caused it to flourish?

OK why just stop there with the "seed" analogy? Problem is that seeds are usually not planted by or nourished by anything intelligent. The majority of seeds are carried in the wind to new locations or in the feces of birds and rodents. The nourishments are pre-existing and are gathered by the seed/plant itself. So the creation of this universe could just have been some random arbitrary event budded off by someother universe or as yet undetectable event. God is still not required.

And so what if the universe is the backdrop itself? There's nothing behind the wall. All there is is just the wall. What if the oscillation theory is true? IF something like god can have no begining why can't the universe also have no begining?

 

[Iacchus]

Cotigo ergo sum? THAT'S your proof of a creator? Iacchus, I think I asked for empirical data, not inferred data. So far all you have returned with is inference and ancedote. If you cannot point to a "Burning Bush" and say "There's your proof" please stop saying that you have some, because what you have is a personal experience that you have attributed meaning to, aka anecdotal evidence.

Yes, and this is pure conjecture on your part, as to what I do or don't know. "Your" mind seems to be closed to the possibility that I know anything at all which, is fine, but don't expect me to continue to "argue" with you any further.

 

[Iacchus]

OK why just stop there with the "seed" analogy? Problem is that seeds are usually not planted by or nourished by anything intelligent. The majority of seeds are carried in the wind to new locations or in the feces of birds and rodents. The nourishments are pre-existing and are gathered by the seed/plant itself. So the creation of this universe could just have been some random arbitrary event budded off by someother universe or as yet undetectable event. God is still not required.

And so what if the universe is the backdrop itself? There's nothing behind the wall. All there is is just the wall. What if the oscillation theory is true? IF something like god can have no begining why can't the universe also have no begining?

Yes, and what you're referring to here is everything which is external to the seed which, would be the backdrop. In which case I ask again, how could this seed we call the Universe have been planted and nourished without anything to sustain it? Are we to infer that there was nothing there before the Big Bang? If so, then perhaps we should go ask Merc about it?

Oh, and let's not forget that the "internal" workings of the Universe are not visible at all to the naked senses. Doesn't that in effect render it invisible to our perception? So, who are you to say whether there was something there -- in its apparent nothingness -- or not? Or, are you willing to accept that Science has discovered all there is in this regard? Indeed, only a small portion of the Universe is "visible."

 

[kmortis]

Yes, and this is pure conjecture on your part, as to what I do or don't know. "Your" mind seems to be closed to the possibility that I know anything at all which, is fine, but don't expect me to continue to "argue" with you any further.

SO, let me get this straight.
1) I asked for IMPERICAL data
2) you gave me anecdotal information
3) I call you on the carpet for it
4) I'm the one with the closed mind

I guess I'm at a loss here. We have YET to actually argue about anything. I cannot get a single thing that I've request out of you, and I'M the bad guy? Read through the post, ya jacka$$. i've been more than reasonable with you. I've put up with your crap for almost, what, four days? I'm the closed minded one? You refuse to entertain that a god doesn't exist!!!

 

[Iacchus]

Cotigo ergo sum? THAT'S your proof of a creator? Iacchus, I think I asked for empirical data, not inferred data. So far all you have returned with is inference and ancedote. If you cannot point to a "Burning Bush" and say "There's your proof" please stop saying that you have some, because what you have is a personal experience that you have attributed meaning to, aka anecdotal evidence.

Personal experience? I'm afraid that's all any of us really has. This is why it's impossible to prove anything to anyone else. Think about it. What would there be to prove, if there was no one sentient and aware to acknowledge it? Indeed, there is no empirical data, outside of what we "think" we are looking at.

 

[Mephisto]

Is it really all that Intelligent?

I wonder how people who subscribe to the "theory" of Intelligent Design can explain monstrous birth defects? How about bad things happening to good people? How about stronger people surviving in times of crisis? How can they explain natural selection? Isn't it plain that in identical survival-type circumstances an animal that is stronger, can think quicker or adapt to its environment will more likely survive than a weaker one?

How does Intelligent Design explain fire, or slime mold, or the Duckbill Platypus?

 

[Iacchus]

4) I'm the one with the closed mind

What is a mind, that won't acknowledge its own existence? I'm afraid your mind (via its perception) is all you've got. Hence, we should be very careful when we begin to assess what is or, isn't in another person's mind.

 

[kmortis]

What is a mind, that won't acknowledge its own existence? I'm afraid your mind (via its perception) is all you've got. Hence, we should be very careful when we begin to assess what is or, isn't in another person's mind.

 

[uruk]

Yes, and what you're referring to here is everything which is external to the seed which, would be the backdrop. In which case I ask again, how could this seed we call the Universe have been planted and nourished without anything to sustain it? Are we to infer that there was nothing there before the Big Bang? If so, then perhaps we should go ask Merc about it?

But none of it would necessarily require a god which is the point you seem to be avoiding. The idea that there is something outside of the universe does not implicate the existance of a god either. And I'm pretty sure what Merc pointed out to you on many occasions is that at our present understanding we cannot yet know if there is even an "outside" to our universe. The analogy you came up with assumes many things. Also what Merc and others have been telling you is that quantum mechanics shows that something can come from nothing. It's called virtual particle pair production. Also check out the kasimir effect. We don't know exactly how it happens. We only know that it does happen. We hardly know everything yet and it is intellectualy dishonest to attribute everything that we don't understand yet to a god.

Oh, and let's not forget that the "internal" workings of the Universe are not visible at all to the naked senses. Doesn't that in effect render it invisible to our perception?

No it does not. The internal workings may be "invisible" to our naked eyes but not our devices. We can detect and make visible all sorts of things that are "invisible to our naked eyes".

So, who are you to say whether there was something there -- in its apparent nothingness -- or not? Or, are you willing to accept that Science has discovered all there is in this regard? Indeed, only a small portion of the Universe is "visible."

I repeat, just because we don't fully understand many things is no reason to running to a god for the explinations.

 

[Iacchus]

I wonder how people who subscribe to the "theory" of Intelligent Design can explain monstrous birth defects? How about bad things happening to good people? How about stronger people surviving in times of crisis? How can they explain natural selection? Isn't it plain that in identical survival-type circumstances an animal that is stronger, can think quicker or adapt to its environment will more likely survive than a weaker one?

How does Intelligent Design explain fire, or slime mold, or the Duckbill Platypus?

What are you saying that "we" are smarter than the Universe ... or, that which inherently "planned" it? If so, wouldn't that mean we stand "outside" of the Universe?

 

[Taffer]

Iacchus. Why don't you, for the benifit of all here, go through your argument for the existance of God, simply explaining each step in your arguement.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

The place for "intelligent design" in the secular education system

I can think of only one place for any concept of intelligent design in the secular education system. By that I mean the discipline of anthropology within the context of the study of belief systems such as voodoo and shamanism. There there is a place for it but as for biology there is not place at all for it - well - not any more so than basket weaving and that belongs in the art and craft room.

 

[Mojo]

What are you saying that "we" are smarter than the Universe ... or, that which inherently "planned" it? If so, wouldn't that mean we stand "outside" of the Universe?

No, I don't think that Mephisto said that. Then again, I'm only judging this on what he actually posted rather than using your more esoteric methods.

 

[Mojo]

Since there is no evidence that the universe is an intelligent entity, and no evidence that your designer exists, the question of whether we are "smarter" than either of these is meaningless.

We, and our intelligence, clearly exist within the universe, otherwise we wouldn't be able to use our intelligence to observe the universe and speculate about our observations of it.

 

[Robin]

If I am correct, a backdrop has always existed ... prior to the Big Bang that is.

But that is not the question - I asked does the backdrop exist without a backdrop? If one thing can exist without a backdrop why can't another?

Except if that one thing has always existed, it would have contain the potential for all things, thus making it irreducibly complex. Therefore suggesting it was all "pre-planned." Surely this would be a sign of intelligence and all-knowing would it not?

How could something that has always existed possibly be "pre-planned"? That is contradictory. If something that has always existed was irreducibly complex then that would only prove that irreducible complexity does not imply a designer, wouldn't it?

That is one of ID's big problems - if "irreducible complexity" implies design then the designer must also be irreducibly complex and would have to be designed. Then it would be designers all the way down.

If on the other hand there is an undesigned designer then this would be proof that irreducible complexity does not require a designer.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

veh tdickxrzoj fbo onu mpoger uhelw ay qst
geh uqickxrwon fbo sjumpover thelzay dot
teh uqickbrwon fxo sjumpover thelzay dog
reh yqickbrwon feo sjumpoveh thxlzau dog
teh uqickbrwon fxo sjumpover thelzay dog
the lazy brown god jumps over the quick fox
the quick brown god jumps over the lazy fox
teh uqickbrown fxo sjumpover the lzay dog
teh uqickbrown fxo jumps over the lzay dog
the quickbrown fxo jumps over the lazy dog
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy god

I may just waste an enormous amount of band width if I typed every possible combination but the is still only a finite number of them anyway so I do have to go through such great lengths to prove it. Most of them do not make any sense but a few jump out at you as more than just a meaningless jumble of characters and there is some assemblage of complex order there. I do not attribute the few that do to "intelligent design" that so called "irreducible complexity" only emerges through statistical chance. After all every possible error was exhausted anyway.

 

[Iacchus]

But that is not the question - I asked does the backdrop exist without a backdrop? If one thing can exist without a backdrop why can't another?

Yet what is another word for backdrop, but reality itself?

How could something that has always existed possibly be "pre-planned"?

Oh, so you don't believe in the Big Bang then?

That is contradictory. If something that has always existed was irreducibly complex then that would only prove that irreducible complexity does not imply a designer, wouldn't it?

No, it would have to be irreducibly complex in order to maintain itself and everything else.

That is one of ID's big problems - if "irreducible complexity" implies design then the designer must also be irreducibly complex and would have to be designed. Then it would be designers all the way down.

No, the designer would be irreducibly complex, but not necessarily the design.

If on the other hand there is an undesigned designer then this would be proof that irreducible complexity does not require a designer.

In order for "a design" to exist, it must stem from that which is irreducibly complex.

 

[Mojo]

In order for "a design" to exist, it must stem from that which is irreducibly complex.

So, by your own reasoning, if a design was to exist, it must have been produced by an irreducibly complex designer. According to the theory of ID, anything irreducibly complex must have been designed, otherwise irreducible complexity could arise spontaneously. So your designer must have been designed by another irreducibly complex designer.

Turtles, anyone?

 

[Iacchus]

So, by your own reasoning, if a design was to exist, it must have been produced by an irreducibly complex designer. According to the theory of ID, anything irreducibly complex must have been designed, otherwise irreducible complexity could arise spontaneously. So your designer must have been designed by another irreducibly complex designer.

Turtles, anyone?

And would you admit, there was ever a time when reality has not existed?

 

[Tricky]

And would you admit, there was ever a time when reality has not existed?

As has been explained to you quite often but you have ignored it, if nothing exists, then time doesn't exist. Your question is at best, circular, but really it is just meaningless.

I'm guessing that you will ignore it again in your heroic quest to remain ignorant.