Intelligent Design

[Iacchus]

But the tool that ires the most people is his seemingly endless supply of strawmen. Whenever he says "in other words, you are saying..." you can be certain that nothing of the original meaning of your post will remain. Quite often, it will be the exact opposite of what you were saying. Foremost among his strawmen is the dreaded scarecrow, "So you are saying something comes from nothing..." This one has been trotted out so many times that the stuffing has been beaten out of it and even the crows are laughing at it.

And if you accept an "arbitrary" Universe, you have accepted nothing.

 

[Iacchus]

It could not begin without a beginning. I think both sides agree it began. But a beginning does not presuppose any outside entity, as creation or invention do.

What would you suppose that it means then? Or, is this too far out of your league? The question that I'm asking is pretty basic. How can something as complex as the Universe, arise out of anything which is less complex? Yes, and believe it or not, it's an "all or nothing" proposition.

 

[Upchurch]

How can something as complex as the Universe, arise out of anything which is less complex?

Let's use your own example, a tree arises out of an acorn, does it not? And yet a tree is much more complex than an acorn. Apparently that is how something which is more complex can come from something that is less complex.

What would you suppose that it means then?

What would you suppose what means?

 

[Iacchus]

Let's use your own example, a tree arises out of an acorn, does it not? And yet a tree is much more complex than an acorn. Apparently that is how something which is more complex can come from something that is less complex.

What would you suppose what means?

How so? The tree isn't any more complex than the design contained within the seed. Notwithstanding the complexity of all the environmental factors involved which, gave rise to the both seed and the tree. While here, I would compare the environmental factors to God, and the seed and/or tree to the Universe.

 

[Mercutio]

What would you suppose that it means then? Or, is this too far out of your league? The question that I'm asking is pretty basic. How can something as complex as the Universe, arise out of anything which is less complex? Yes, and believe it or not, it's an "all or nothing" proposition.

I do not presume that it does or does not have "meaning", especially since "meaning" would appear to be in the eye of the beholder.

While "out of your league" has a pejorative tone to it, it is beyond my ability to know. It is also beyond yours, and beyond any human's, with the current state of the evidence. We can hypothesize, we can theorise, we can even make crap up. But we cannot, as yet, know.

The question you are asking is not basic, it is irrelevant. You are asking what something means which cannot even be described, let alone understood completely. I have something here which I am not going to show you...could you please tell me what it means?

How could something as complex as life on this planet arise out of simple single-celled organisms? Natural selection has an answer that does not require tremendous complexity at all, certainly not pre-existing complexity. Any supposition that it is "pre-planned" is purely circular, with no supporting evidence whatsoever (this position should be familiar to you). I know this is not the same example as cosmology; it is an analogy. The bottom line is, your ignorance of how something happened is not evidence that it happened the way you desperately want it to.

And lastly..."all or nothing" because...you say so? Because you dreamed something? Sorry, Iacchus, but you will have to do better than "believe it or not". If it is indeed an all or nothing proposition, and you know this (rather than merely believe it), you should have no problem sharing the evidence that led you to know it.

 

[Robin]

What would you suppose that it means then? Or, is this too far out of your league? The question that I'm asking is pretty basic. How can something as complex as the Universe, arise out of anything which is less complex? Yes, and believe it or not, it's an "all or nothing" proposition.

On what do you base your opinion that something complex cannot arise from something less complex? Basically you are asserting something as a universal verity just because it happens to appear intuitive to you.

There are a number of competing definitions of complexity, but mathematically there are good reasons for believing that what we observe as complexity can arise from something less complex.

Or to put it another way, perhaps the universe is not complex, but merely intricate.

 

[kmortis]

Fair enough.

Good, so my Iacchus filter has been properly installed.

Which aspect? Actually, I don't know much more about ID than what I've described. Neither am I a follower of those who are proponents of it. How does their version differ from mine?

Well, so far, I'd say that the biggest similarity you hold with the ID crowd, is this steadfast belief in a creator.

Well yes, this in effect is what I have said.

Ok, so we seem to be at an impasse....

So, how could the Universe just invent itself -- prior to its creation that is -- without an Inventor?

...until. I have to side with Merc on this one. That question is unknowable. We have no means of testing it in any way. I'd say that it just was. We don't know, for sure, how It All got here, all we have is some really good evidence that it got here somehow. If it fills a hole in your psyche to answer that question mark with a god, there really isn't anythig I can say that can illustrate how it's not necessary.

I do find it interesting tho that this "Inventor", "Creator" or whatever label we want to assign him/her/it hasn't seen fit to give us any really good evidence to their existance. Inference is not evidence, it's a thought process that we humans are geneticaly predisposed to do. It's really helpful in the hunt, ya know.

So, without asking me to infer anything, what evidence do you have that points to His (the creator) existance? Something that we can follow the chain on, preferably.

 

[Iacchus]

...until. I have to side with Merc on this one. That question is unknowable. We have no means of testing it in any way. I'd say that it just was. We don't know, for sure, how It All got here, all we have is some really good evidence that it got here somehow. If it fills a hole in your psyche to answer that question mark with a god, there really isn't anythig I can say that can illustrate how it's not necessary.

Well, if anything, I woud say the Creator was extremely pragmatic.

I do find it interesting tho that this "Inventor", "Creator" or whatever label we want to assign him/her/it hasn't seen fit to give us any really good evidence to their existance. Inference is not evidence, it's a thought process that we humans are geneticaly predisposed to do. It's really helpful in the hunt, ya know.

The evidence? The evidence is in His works. Indeed, if we weren't conscious, and unable to reason about the whole affair which, seems to be specifically designed to allow us to do so, would we even be discussing this?

So, without asking me to infer anything, what evidence do you have that points to His (the creator) existance? Something that we can follow the chain on, preferably.

The fact that the Universe is knowable and, that we can reason about it. Our ability to reason is the biggest gift of all.

 

[Taffer]

The fact that the Universe is knowable and, that we can reason about it. Our ability to reason is the biggest gift of all.

Why does this mean the universe had a creator?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, if anything, I woud say the Creator was extremely pragmatic.

Oh, this is what makes Him "invisible" by the way, because all things are delegated from the standpoint of being neutral ... thus giving us the sense that everything is stand alone and autonomous. Which, is probably why we won't find Him on the outside but, rather on the inside.

 

[Taffer]

Oh, this is what makes Him "invisible" by the way, because all things are delegated from the standpoint of being neutral ... thus giving us the sense that everything is stand alone and autonomous. Which, is probably why we won't find Him on the outside but, rather on the inside.

Translation: I don't have any evidence for the creators existance.

 

[Iacchus]

Why does this mean the universe had a creator?

Which, is something you'll have to reason out for yourself I guess.

 

[Iacchus]

Translation: I don't have any evidence for the creators existance.

The fact that "I" exist, and know that "I" exist and, am capable of knowing all sorts of things, "is" the evidence. Yes, I have lots of evidence, except that most of it is personal. But then again, in what way could it not be personal?

 

[uruk]

The fact that "I" exist, and know that "I" exist and, am capable of knowing all sorts of things, "is" the evidence. Yes, I have lots of evidence, except that most of it's personal. But then again, in what way could it not be personal?

Don't you think that it is still just an assumption? Why does the fact that "I" exist necessarily mean that god exists? And as far as the personal evidence goes, how are you sure your not fooling yourself? Aren't you simply just choosing to believe?

 

[Iacchus]

On what do you base your opinion that something complex cannot arise from something less complex? Basically you are asserting something as a universal verity just because it happens to appear intuitive to you.

Ever consider how much time and effort goes into the production of a motion picture? Yet when we watch it on the screen, the whole thing seems seemless and effortless. Now why is that? Indeed, where is the play without the backdrop (or stage) upon which it is set?

There are a number of competing definitions of complexity, but mathematically there are good reasons for believing that what we observe as complexity can arise from something less complex.

Or to put it another way, perhaps the universe is not complex, but merely intricate.

Is anyone here suggesting that the Universe can exist without a backdrop? If so, then can you please tell us how something can come from nothing?

 

[Iacchus]

Don't you think that it is still just an assumption? Why does the fact that "I" exist necessarily mean that god exists? And as far as the personal evidence goes, how are you sure your not fooling yourself? Aren't you simply just choosing to believe?

The thing is, "you" are the only one who can differentiate that.

 

[uruk]

The thing is, "you" are the only one who can differentiate that.

Still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Taffer]

Which, is something you'll have to reason out for yourself I guess.

Please answer the question.

 

[Taffer]

The fact that "I" exist, and know that "I" exist and, am capable of knowing all sorts of things, "is" the evidence. Yes, I have lots of evidence, except that most of it is personal. But then again, in what way could it not be personal?

You still have not shown us any evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

Please answer the question.

No, the answer lies in your ability to ask questions.