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:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 256 of 396 (617469)
05-29-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Who designed the designer?
Dr Adequate writes:
But there is no reason why it should be possible only in that case. Once you have admitted that something complex enough to design the whole universe could exist without having a designer, then I see no basis for denying that that is at least possible also in the case of the things we see around us, all of which are (by your reasoning) less complicated than your hypothetical designer.
I'll have to agree with you on this point.
If you want to know what atheists think, you would do better to ask some atheists instead of making stuff up.
I, for example, am an atheist, and I do not even find the phrase "before time" meaningful.
Hard to see why you would regard the phrase "before time" as meaningless since it's always mentioned when considering the formation of the universe. Time had to have a starting point, so there is a period before & after time.
You know, "matter" is a technical term, it doesn't include everything that has existence. (It would not, for example, include the standard God of the theists.)
You lost me here, are you saying that matter can refer to nothing?
Cause it is my understanding that matter refers to something physical, which would be 'something' than opposed to 'nothing'.
Even if all atheists believed in this collision of universes idea, which I do not because I've barely heard of it, then the deduction that you ascribe to them would not necessarily follow. After all, there is a theory that I was produced by two people having sex, but although I accept this theory I do not deduce from it an infinite number of people.
Really, you should not be so free in ascribing views to atheists. First you make up what we think, then you figure out what you, not we, would deduce from the views that you ascribe to us, and then you generously attribute these deductions to us too.
Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'.
But I can't help but wonder, which theory do you accept regarding the existence of this universe?
Then you should read it again, since I do not subscribe to that belief (nor deny it) and was explaining why not.
If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance?
The immediate answer to that is that gravity is an attractive and not a repulsive force. As to the cause of this, that too might well be a matter of necessity rather than chance.
lol, I wasn't asking you how gravity functioned...On the other hand, are you saying that gravity is here simply because it was necessary? Why don't you just admit it, your taking the position that everything in this universe is here by chance.
You are not forced to, you choose to. There is no reason either a priori or a posteriori why the reason for the universe should be possessed of a personality.
Of course I chose to, was I Claiming otherwise? as for your last point, I'm not certain where your getting at. My position is simply that this universe was created, what does personality have to do with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2011 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 05-29-2011 10:58 AM SavageD has replied
 Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2011 6:09 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 257 of 396 (617474)
05-29-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


RAZDeality
Edited by Admin, : Hide content of off-topic post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:06 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 258 of 396 (617475)
05-29-2011 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by SavageD
05-29-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Who designed the designer?
Hi SavageD,
First let's get the off-topic stuff out of the way. I was going to send you a PM, but since I find myself responding to one of your messages I'll tell you here: My Admin alter ego merged your 1SavageD1 account with your SavageD account. All your SavageD account information was maintained except for the email address and password, which came from the newer 1SavageD1 account.
SavageD writes:
Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'.
Theories about multiple universes come from science, not atheism. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't.
There are a number of flavors of theories (hypotheses is a more appropriate term, but it has become common practice to refer to them as theories) of multiple universes, but none have experimental verification and so none are yet accepted within science. But probably most cosmologists believe that something at least somewhat along the lines of one of them must be correct.
If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance?
I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
In other words, the evidence we currently have in hand doesn't tell us which of the many theories of cosmological origins is correct. Or with more brevity, we don't know how the universe came to be.
How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by SavageD, posted 05-29-2011 10:13 AM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by SavageD, posted 06-01-2011 1:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 259 of 396 (617477)
05-29-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Straggler
05-29-2011 10:56 AM


Re: RAZDeality
Admin writes:
Edited by Admin, 05-29-2011 4:00 PM: Hide content of off-topic post
Is questioning the deductive logical basis of this thread which (supposedly) deductively logically proves that ID is faith realllyoff-topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 10:56 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 260 of 396 (617479)
05-29-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler
05-29-2011 9:29 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler, when you say that natural processes can make complexity, and then try to compare that to life, it seems to me that you don't understand the perception of life as many can view it.
Life isn't complex. That doesn't describe it at all. Its organized. Its sophisticated. Its methodical and systematic. Its interdependent on a million different precise symbiotic mazes. You talk about complexity like the patterns of a star, as if that could even come close to comparing with the highly organized factory that is life. Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 9:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 05-29-2011 11:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 265 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:34 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 261 of 396 (617480)
05-29-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
If complexity isn't "the thing" you are citing as necessitating of intelligent design - The what is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:32 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 268 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:38 AM Straggler has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 262 of 396 (617481)
05-29-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Bolder-dash writes:
Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.
What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 263 of 396 (617483)
05-29-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler
05-29-2011 9:29 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler writes:
How exactly do we test for the effects of an intelligent designer?
We know that natural processes can result in complexity don't we? So how exactly do you decide when to invoke intelligent design?
Is everything designed? Or do you think some things aren't intelligently designed?
We can test the effects by looking at the reinforcement/s of that the said specimen. For example, I would like to test if HUMANS are created or evolved. Then, if I could find reinforcement for the life of human, then, human must be intelligently created by Intelligent Designer. If I could not find it/them, then, purely natural processes (nature) had evolved humans from lower form.
Natural processes (purely) can make complexity, but not reinforcement/s. We invoke intelligent design by detecting not complexity, but reinforcement.
Not all things are designed intelligently. Some are naturally made.
IN all LIVING ORGANISMS, the changes of species is best called interrelation, not evolution.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 9:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:36 AM intellen has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 264 of 396 (617484)
05-29-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Straggler
05-29-2011 11:19 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler writes:
If complexity isn't "the thing" you are citing as necessitating of intelligent design - The what is?
Reinforcement.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:19 AM Straggler has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 265 of 396 (617485)
05-29-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Bolder-dash writes:
Straggler, when you say that natural processes can make complexity, and then try to compare that to life, it seems to me that you don't understand the perception of life as many can view it.
Life isn't complex. That doesn't describe it at all. Its organized. Its sophisticated. Its methodical and systematic. Its interdependent on a million different precise symbiotic mazes. You talk about complexity like the patterns of a star, as if that could even come close to comparing with the highly organized factory that is life. Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.
To say that life is not complex without any boundary line between complex and simple is wrong and unscientific.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:42 AM intellen has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 266 of 396 (617486)
05-29-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Percy
05-29-2011 11:27 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Percy writes:
Bolder-dash writes:
Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.
What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer.
--Percy
Complexity is very hard to quantify in science. I think it is one of the weakness of the old ID. But not now, we had already reinforcement.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 05-29-2011 11:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 267 of 396 (617487)
05-29-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by intellen
05-29-2011 11:31 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
I have never heard of an Intelligent Design arguemnt based on he idea of "reinforcements" before.
Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "reinforcements"....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:31 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:40 AM Straggler has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 268 of 396 (617488)
05-29-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Straggler
05-29-2011 11:19 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler,
Go back and read what I just described life as being, and I think you can find the beginnings of an answer.
Of course the English language really isn't deep enough to fully describe the intelligence and sophistication that is life-that so many here are willing to simply chalk up to mere chance.
What's really silly, in my opinion, is that those same people that want to dismiss any intelligent force behind creation-because it can't be seen or proved, are however perfectly willing to invoke visions of endless universes, in which all is possible, or multiple dimensions, or cosmic hidden forces, if these imaginations they have conjured up can somehow help them to rationalize the reality they see without having to invoke something they describe as "unnatural" because it can't be seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:19 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 4:40 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 269 of 396 (617489)
05-29-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
05-29-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler writes:
I have never heard of an Intelligent Design arguemnt based on he idea of "reinforcements" before.
Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "reinforcements"....?
This is a new one. I'd discovered it.
Reinforcement is support or back-up. I'll show you.
Intellen = life + defense mechanism + sensory system + thinking minds
naturen = life + NO defense mechanism + NO sensory system + NO thinking minds
In this example, defense mechanism + sensory system + thinking minds are both reinforcements to life.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:43 AM intellen has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 270 of 396 (617490)
05-29-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by intellen
05-29-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
I don't think you get it. Calling life complex is like calling the universe kind of big.
Yea its kind of big, but does that really adequately convey its size?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:34 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:45 AM Bolder-dash 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