Intelligent Design

[MRC_Hans]

Either that, or you just get tired of arguing with yourself.

No worries, I settled that argument long ago. I'm more in doubt about you.

Sure it does, because you're not addressing how the universe got here.

Could it be because we are discussing ID, here?

Yes, and when we begin to speak of the origin of the Universe, we begin to speak of that which transcends it. Are you saying such questions don't concern you? I mean how ignorant can you get?

They sure do. What they don't do is concern the discussion of ID.

Yes, very interesting choice of words here.

Whatever.

Hans

 

[Mercutio]

No, the question is indeed answerable, otherwise we would have no such notion of time.

No, Iacchus, the question as you put it is unanswerable. The fact that you believe you can stand outside the universe by means of dreaming, does not mean you can actually do so. To answer the question as you frame it, one would have to stand outside the universe, which is a meaningless proposition, given that the universe is all that we can know (by definition).

Please, I wish you would take the time to understand the things you yourself write. I begin to think that you choose words merely because you like the sounds they make, not because you have any grasp of their meanings.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am suggesting that everything is interconnected and, that this constitutes a relationship between all things. If anything exists outside of this relationship, it is not a part of this Universe. Notwithstanding we have the appearance of randomness but, this is only due to the remoteness of one thing to the next. If you wish to believe that things "just happen," then that is entirely up to you.

Let's talk about cosmic rays. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume they are not random. Do you agree that their points of impact on the earth are random relative to the environment of the earth?

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Let's talk about cosmic rays. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume they are not random. Do you agree that their points of impact on the earth are random relative to the environment of the earth?

No, not if everything happens according to its design. What you're asking me is like, what's the difference between a flea and elephant? They're obviously not one and the same, yet neither can exist outside of the structure of what we call the Universe.

 

[kmortis]

No, not if everything happens according to its design.

What design? Where are the CAD files?

What you're asking me here is like, what's the difference between a flea and elephant?

They're both parasites, except for the elephant?

They're obviously not one and the same, yet neither can exist outside of the structure of what we call the Universe.

That statement is unfalsifable. No one can get outside the known universe to observe whether or not cosmic rays, the Earth or even peanut-butter banana sandwitches exist out there.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, not if everything happens according to its design. What you're asking me here is like, what's the difference between a flea and elephant? They're obviously not one and the same, yet neither can exist outside of the structure of what we call the Universe.

What this has to do with a flea and an elephant I'm not sure.

So you're saying that there is something about the design of cosmic rays, and something about the design of my sperm, and something about the design of the history of evolution on earth, that predestines a specific cosmic ray to strike a specific sperm in my body to effect some predetermined grand plan?

You are a determinist among determinists, that's for sure.

They're obviously not one and the same, yet neither can exist outside of the structure of what we call the Universe.

This is the sort of statement that has people rolling their eyes. I think we agree that fleas are not elephants. What in the name of Ed does this have to do with cosmic rays?

~~ Paul

 

[wollery]

This is the sort of statement that has people rolling their eyes. I think we agree that fleas are not elephants. What in the name of Ed does this have to do with cosmic rays?

~~ Paul

Nothing, he just thinks it makes him sound intelligent.

 

[alfaniner]

Nothing, he just thinks it makes him sound intelligent.

It would be the first thinking he's done all day.

 

[c4ts]

He does think a lot, about the same things over and over again. He's created an unproductive loop which he finds quite comfortable.

 

[hammegk]

"irreducibly complex," ... the term does not apply to natural laws.

~~ Paul

In this universe, the 19 finely tuned constants that allow us to be having this converstaion suggest otherwise, at least to some (including me).

Behe imo is looking at the wrong -- macro -- end of the processes.

 

[Iacchus]

Ok, so where is the proof that everything is inteconnected?
Even if I were accept that there was a great degree of interconnectedness (is that even a word?), would not there be some practical level of abstractedness that we could say "Here Be Monst...", um, I mean "Beyond this point the relationships are so remote and inferred to be virtually random"?

Yes, "virtually" random, but "still" connected.

 

[wollery]

In this universe, the 19 finely tuned constants that allow us to be having this converstaion suggest otherwise, at least to some (including me).

Behe imo is looking at the wrong -- macro -- end of the processes.

Ooh, the anthropic principle.

However, just because the constants are the way they are does not mean that they were designed that way. In fact I find the term "finely tuned" very leading.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In this universe, the 19 finely tuned constants that allow us to be having this converstaion suggest otherwise, at least to some (including me).

An object is irreducibly complex if there is no way it could have evolved. That has nothing to do with constants, which presumably don't evolve. Also, of course, you have no idea what the result of changing them would be.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

So you're saying that there is something about the design of cosmic rays, and something about the design of my sperm, and something about the design of the history of evolution on earth, that predestines a specific cosmic ray to strike a specific sperm in my body to effect some predetermined grand plan?

That's pretty much the jist of it, yes. I also believe that determinism and free will pretty much go hand in hand.

 

[Tricky]

That's pretty much the jist of it, yes. I also believe that determinism and free will pretty much go hand in hand.

Then you don't really understand them. Determinism and free will are opposites.

 

[Iacchus]

That statement is unfalsifable. No one can get outside the known universe to observe whether or not cosmic rays, the Earth or even peanut-butter banana sandwitches exist out there.

Actually, these things have always existed, regardless of whether a Universe preceeds their (physical) actuality or not. This is what makes it irreducibly complex.

 

[wollery]

I also believe that determinism and free will pretty much go hand in hand.

Do you actually read what you write?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus, can you explain how free will and determinism "go hand in hand"?

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Then you don't really understand them. Determinism and free will are opposites.

Push vs pull, up vs down, in vs out, light vs dark, beginning vs end, positive vs negative, acid vs alkaline, solid vs liquid, energy vs matter, what's your point? ... If, you even have one?

 

[kmortis]

Yes, "virtually" random, but "still" connected.

Look, when I'm in my lab, I have to show that Event A causes Event B. I do this by determing the intial conditions, changing a single portion, and demonstrating the results. If you are trying to tell me that every Event A causes Event B, then I say that you are positing a nonsensical position. We can demonstrate, repeatedly that where I set my coffee cup doesn't have any effect on the Unit Under Test.

Even with that, I can also have certain Event Bs that are stochastic. Sometimes, When I do a particular Event A, a few Event Bs occur. Usually, it's a smallish set of Event Bs that occur, but still one of a few final conditions can occur. This is especially true with transient testing. At what point do I say that the various Event Bs occur by "chance", depending on various factors (ie humidity, ambient temp, UUT temp) that I have little to no control over? Where I put my coffee cup wil definatly not effect any of those factors greatly (assuming that I don't do something that would damage the integrity of my test setup, like pour the coffee all over the UUTs circuit boards), therefore it's nonsense to talk about the effect my coffee cup has on the UUT performance.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, whereas on a philosophical level, I might be willing to entertain the concept over a beer (or to paraphrase Josh McDowell - Evidence that Demands Discussion over an Adult Beverage), but as a serious debate issue, I'm afraid that it falls short. We cannot test it, therefore it cannot be proven false.