Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Constraints of Design
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 60 of 84 (483592)
09-23-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dogrelata
09-17-2008 7:55 AM


Prediction falsified!
All quotes from dogrelata:
For the first time in some months, I’ve managed to find a little time to check out some of the current topics that go towards making this forum so fascinating. One thing doesn’t seem to have changed much though - evolutionists are still asking IDers to produce evidence to substantiate their claims, and still no evidence appears.
Do I detect some cockiness in this statement? "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Indeed, on a couple of occasions I have asked IDers to personally ask their ”prime suspect’ for ”IDer in chief’ how it formulated its grand design. Not surprisingly, I have had no positive responses. As somebody who sees no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, I predict no such positive response will ever be forthcoming.
Another falsified theory. In the beginning God.... In the beginning was the word....(word=logos, the same word we use for logic). God formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence. Matter. Lots of it. We know for a fact that matter can be created from energy. We know for a fact that there must be an infinite power source in the beginning before the BB. Science has recognized these things.
However, it does not follow that non-IDers should give up on the quest to try to illicit some kind of response from the ID lobby, beyond the perfunctory, “we don’t think natural processes can explain this, therefore it must have been designed”.
I don't think your quotation is correct. I would argue that "we know that natural processes cannot do certain things, therefore it must have been designed."
They have chosen to draw one inference from the analogy, but surely there are other questions raised by it that require addressing. For example, by analysing the watch in much greater detail, much can be learned about the design (and production) processes, as well as the materials that were used, etc, not to mention the amount of design knowledge that existed at the time the design was formulated. These might all be seen as design constraints placed upon designers whenever they look to design and produce anything.
So the first question might be, based on what IDers have observed of the designs they perceive in nature, what design constraints did the intelligent designer have to work with in formulating its ”grand design’? Specifically, what design knowledge was available to it? What materials were available to it? Where did these materials come from?
God is all knowing. So He knew all design knowledge. No materials were available in the beginning. God created the materials through His infinite power. No poof. No magic. Simple physics.
At this point the ID lobby tends to go on the offensive by attacking evolutionary theory without a backward glance to the analogy that underpins the intelligent design argument.
By the current definition of nature, there is no possibility of the supernatural. So God is not supernatural. He is natural. It is just a matter of definition.
Indeed, the very reason that things need to be designed and then produced is because they cannot be ”magiced’ into existence - evidence of design is in itself evidence of the designer having to work within the constraints of the reality they inhabit and is a clear pointer to the designer having no ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers.
God is against magic. He says so in His scripture. God did not use magic. He used physics. There is nothing magical about converting energy to matter.
So the second question would be, do IDers accept the proposition that evidence of design within natural processes would point to a designer working within the constraints imposed upon them by their environment and the lack of any ”supernatural’ or ”magical’ powers on the part of said designer?
God does not use magic. His power is unconstrained. Infinite. By the current definition of nature, God is not supernatural. He is natural.
PS. I use the term "God", because He has been identified by the legal community and the scientific community as the intelligent designer. So why not call the intelligent designer by name?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dogrelata, posted 09-17-2008 7:55 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 12:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 67 by dogrelata, posted 09-23-2008 5:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 62 of 84 (483608)
09-23-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
I don't think your quotation is correct. I would argue that "we know that natural processes cannot do certain things, therefore it must have been designed."
evidence please.
Uhhhh.....natural processes cannot produce a watch. Natural proceses do not create kevlar. Natural processes cannot create the faces on Mt Rushmore. I could go on with a myriad of examples.
It is reasonable to assume that a random rock flying from a road can crack the windshield on your car. Natural unintelligent processes can create a crack in your windshield. It is also possible that an intelligent creative force cracked the windshield. If I see your car next week and the windshield is no longer cracked, it is unreasonable for me to assume that nature repaired your windshield. (even if I saw your windshield a million years later.) Natural processes cannot do that. However, it is reasonable for me to assume that some form of intelligent creative force fixed your car window.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 12:48 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 3:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2008 4:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 65 of 84 (483649)
09-23-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by cavediver
09-23-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
cavediver writes:
Of course they can - how else are there watches? What is it about a watchmaker that is not natural? Does God mystically imbue him with the ability to create watches? Given a naturally operating human, watches can be created quite naturally. Is it really the watch you claim cannot be created naturally or is it the human?
Do you really want to use this argument? If so, then you have just declared that there is tons of evidence for intelligent design within nature. Thanks, I'll take that and run with it.
I'll give you the opportunity to rethink your argument and retract it or I will run with it.
cavediver writes:
By the way - can natural processes produce something as complex as a star?
We don't know. We can only theorize star formation. We certainly haven't observed one form naturally and we can't form one in the lab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2008 4:00 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by cavediver, posted 09-23-2008 5:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 71 by bluegenes, posted 09-23-2008 5:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 66 of 84 (483654)
09-23-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
bluescat48 writes:
All of your examples are man-made objects. Try some non man-made objects.
That's because no one can argue that man is not intelligent, and that man doesn't design things. He is inarguably an intelligent designer. And we can infer his actions by identifying processes that can't happen naturally. Forensics and SETI are established with these thought processes. If there are complex systems that infer design, but it cannot be established that they can spontaneously form without intelligence then it would be reasonable to assume an intelligent designer.
Non-man made objects would be natural by definition (scientific definition)...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 3:51 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 5:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 69 of 84 (483659)
09-23-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by bluescat48
09-23-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Non-man made objects would be natural by definition (scientific definition)...
and thus not designed.
And thus you have created a tautology. Do you see the problem?
Science doesn't allow tautologies does it?
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 5:09 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluescat48, posted 09-23-2008 6:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 73 of 84 (483814)
09-24-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by dogrelata
09-23-2008 5:07 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
all quotes from dogrelata....
The title you have chosen for your post - Prediction falsified! - is kind of interesting. I’ve re-read the original post, in case something I’d written had slipped my mind, but I see nothing approximating a prediction in what I wrote at the time.
Well maybe it did slip your mind, and maybe you aren't a very good reader. To help you out, I will try to refresh your memory. Here are your exact words....
Indeed, on a couple of occasions I have asked IDers to personally ask their ”prime suspect’ for ”IDer in chief’ how it formulated its grand design. Not surprisingly, I have had no positive responses. As somebody who sees no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, I predict no such positive response will ever be forthcoming.
Do you see the words "I predict" in yellow there... Does that refresh your memory of the OP?
And here was my response.....
AOk writes:
Another falsified theory. In the beginning God.... In the beginning was the word....(word=logos, the same word we use for logic). God formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence. Matter. Lots of it. We know for a fact that matter can be created from energy. We know for a fact that there must be an infinite power source in the beginning before the BB. Science has recognized these things.
Now that was a positive response to your challenge. I didn't attack science, the BB, or the ToE. I gave you a reasoned response which you did not respond to. I falsified your prediction, and that was the reason for the title "Prediction falsified".
I’m happy to rectify that now and give you an opportunity to falsify the prediction I am about to make.
It’s a prediction about you. I ”predict’ that you were taught about (and bought into) the god you proclaim before you were introduced to any scientific knowledge of any kind, especially the science surrounding the evolution of species.
Let me explain why I say that.
You may want to stop with the "predictions", since you obviously don't know what a prediction is....
wiki writes:
A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. prediction
Predictions are about the future not the past. You may be referring to an "assumption" about my past experiences, but not a prediction. And you do know what ASSuming can do, don't you?
Before I go any further, can I ask you to cite the natural ”designs’ which allow you to conclude your god is “all knowing” and knows “all design knowledge” and what it is in particular that leads you to that conclusion.
Well first you must understand that my ultimate source of information regarding God is the Bible. However, there is ample evidence of design in nature that defies human explanation. Here are just a few....
The "design" of the non-material infinite force in the universe called gravity. The design of all the "fundamentals" which are part of the anthropic principle. The design of life. The design of the mind and consciousness.
These are just a few evidences in the natural universe that lead to a suggestion of an "all knowing" and "all design knowledge" God.
There’s also a very significant problem with the claims you make for your god and how good a fit they are for the human designers we observe in real life.
This is a strawman argument, as I have never claimed that God is on par with human designers. He is obviously superior. Infinite in fact. However the designer God does parallel very close to what we observe in human design.
You claim your god is “all knowing”. Are human designers “all knowing”? No. Bad fit #1.
Human designers can be "all knowing". Note the quote marks. They have access to books, and information worldwide. In fact, within their field of expertise they are expected to be "all knowing". Again, apes, beavers, bees show strong evidence that they can design. But they are not on par with humans. The same analogy applies to our design capabilities relative to God's. I think this is a good fit.
You claim, “No materials were available in the beginning”. To the best of our knowledge, has any human designer ever produced anything with nothing to work with. No. Bad fit #2.
This is a strawman argument. Yes, I did say that God had no materials, but I didn't say that he had nothing to work with. I said He was an infinite power source. That is not unreasonable. Scientists agree that gravity was infinite in magnitude at the singularity that caused the BB. Gravity, therefore is a non-material infinite power source that science recognizes must have existed at the beginning. If science can reason a non-material infinite power source, then why can't I? I call Him God. We know for a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable. Matter can be created from energy. Matter is finite in quantity in the unverse. Gravity is infinite. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for a Christian to conclude that God made all the matter from His power. You believe the same thing.
Humans have created things from just power. I think it is a good fit.
You then claim, “God created the materials through His infinite power”. Do human designers have infinite power? No. Bad fit #3.
I now see the source of all your strawmnen arguments. Infinite power is the source of God being able to create matter, just like you believe nature did. Once God created the matter, He doesn't need infinite power to do all the other things. The creation of stars and planets would only require a finite amount of power. The creation of water and elements only requires a finite amount of power. So let me be clear, God does not need infinite power to do most of His designing. I think it is a good fit.
Finally you claim, “God formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence”. Is this how human designers operate? No. Bad fit #4.
Actually this is an excellent fit with human design. We formulate our ideas in our minds, and then we start creating. We write our thoughts down, we speak them to others, we organize with communication. And through that communication process things get created.
The design you believe you see in nature looks like a pretty bad fit for what we know about design as carried out by human designers, so it’s tough to conclude what is being observed can be classified as design.
Actually, I have refuted every "bad fit" argument you made, now why don't you deal with my arguments. Cite all of them this time, like I have yours. Don't cherry pick and create strawmen.
To summarise, you were asked to examine the evidence and draw a conclusion. Instead you appear to have taken a pre-existing predilection and imposed it upon the ”evidence’ you observe to reinforce your belief structure.
This is exactly what science is. It is the examination of evidence relative to methodological naturalism. It is an a priori philosophy that doesn't allow opposition. It is definitely a belief structure.
That is the basis of my prediction. Of course you can prove me wrong by refuting my suggestion that you were introduced to your god before science, at which point you will have falsified my prediction.
You evidently don't know what a prediction is. When you made one before, I falsified it. You haven't made one in this post, because you misapplied the word.
Should you not be able to do so, I invite to return to the original post and try to answer the questions as they were posed, not as they best fit your pre-disposition.
I have refuted just about everything you have said. Your logic is full of holes and fallacies. Now why don't you take the time, and deal with all of my arguments. Shall I make a prediction about whether you will? No. But I will patiently wait for your mutiple responses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dogrelata, posted 09-23-2008 5:07 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2008 1:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 75 by dogrelata, posted 09-24-2008 4:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 76 by dogrelata, posted 09-25-2008 4:13 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 77 of 84 (484012)
09-25-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
09-24-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
What "design"? What "infinite" force?
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
I guess you don't undertand design? Please read... Design
Designs have a purpose....Something that appears to have a purpose would be suggestive of design....
wiki writes:
In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese. The fine tuning of the universe is positive evidence for design. Now I realze that you can argue against this, but it is still positive evidence and not an argument against anything.
Again, what design?
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...
So far, I would say that you are making the assertions, and you aren't looking too good...
I have backed up my claims....
Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it? That is what the BBT says isn't it? But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
wiki writes:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. BBT
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
wiki on singularity writes:
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite.
BBT doesn't imply that something was created from nothing does it? No, BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
We don't.
I think we do.
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc2 does not stand for matter...
No the m stands for mass, which all matter has. And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
So where may I ask is the rubbish? Please be specific this time, and try and type more that just a few comments. Arguments have premises. You haven't created any yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2008 1:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 7:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 09-25-2008 7:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 09-26-2008 10:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 81 by dogrelata, posted 09-26-2008 1:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 82 of 84 (484557)
09-29-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
09-25-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
All quotes from cavediver:
Gravity is not an 'infinite' force - this is a meaningless statement. Curvature (all usual measures, though interestingly not Weyl) increases without bound as one approaches T=0 in a FRW universe (Big bang cosmology)
Actually you are just asserting that it is meaningless without anything but your words to back it up. The fact is that however you descibe gravity (a force, a fundamental particle, a curvature of space time) they all can be described as "meaningless" , because no one on this earth can difinitively describe what gravity is. It is a fundamental force. And that has meaning. It is the curvature of spacetime. And that has meaning. It may be the accumulative effect of fundamental particles. And that has meaning. But even with your supposed great physics wisdon, you cannot absolutely define what gravity is. It defies your ability to accurately describe it without observable anomalies and discrepancies.
The claim I am arguing is two-fold.
1. Gravity is non-matterial. It is not matter.
2. Gravity has been reasoned by science to be infinite in the singularity of the BBT.
Now, let's see you wiggle your words around these two statements, and they are not assertions
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions. While you're at it, where would this purpose show itself in the equations of General Relativity? Where would this purpose affect the metric exactly? Could we detect this purpose by detecting abberations from GR?
Oh and I guess you would consider equations as empirical scientific evidence. Equations, all of them are reasoned arguments. That's all. Equations yield the infinities at the BB. Your equations aren't evidence of anything. They are logic and reasoning.
In regards to the purpose of the fundamental force, purpose is a matter of reasoning about evidence. The empirical evidence of gravity is well documented throughout the cosmos.
wiki writes:
Purpose serves to change the state of conditions in a given environment, usually to one with a perceived better set of conditions or parameters from the previous state.
The question is does gravity appear to change the state of conditions in a given environment to one with a better set of conditions or parameters from a previous state? When a star forms, is this just a random purposeless event of nature or does gravity change the state of matter to a better one? When earth formed, was this puposeless and random or did gravity change the state of matter to one of disorder to one of order. These are teleological arguments based on empirical evidence. They are logic just like equations are logic.
Yes, and you brought up the AP which is rather odd as it speaks directly against design (other than in its stronger versions, which are assertions, and not evidence.)
Again, this is a red herring. Positive evidence is positive evidence. Arguments on AP are not evidence of anything.
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions.
You wrote the sentence above didn't you? That is the evidence. Now did you have a purpose in writing it, or did your mind just act with purposeleness and randomness. My reasoning says that your non-material thoughts (information) have a pupose.
I have backed up my claims....
Sorry, I must have missed them
Sorry, that's the definition of ignorance.
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it?
Perhaps a claim of your layman books... we would say it is a possibility.
I don't really care about what "we" would say. The field of science has reasoned that gravity was infinite in the singularity of the BB. You cannot legitimately deny and run from that statement.
And? That would be a result of the infinite energy density And of course this is a purely classical claim...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702113v3.pdf
Based on scientific grounds, one can hardly accept the possibility of a physical object transforming into a mathematical abstraction (a point) and vice versa. The existence of singularities necessarily implies infinite gravity and, hence, the availability of an infinite amount of energy from finite sources. If a singularity is a point (in the mathematical sense) then the universe, born from a singularity, must have passed from non-existence to existence, which violates the conservation principle.
What is highlighted in yellow is part of the BBT.
Which measure of the gravitational field? R, RR, RR, CC?
More red herring questions.
what have YOU to do with science?
About 23 years worth now.
Matter is not created from energy whatever your layman guide of the day states.
More assertions. Back it up with citations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 7:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2008 1:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 84 of 84 (484577)
09-29-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by AdminNosy
09-29-2008 1:23 PM


Re: No more AoKid
I am not trying to argue this suspension, but can I ask why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2008 1:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024