Message 61 of 84 (483599) 09-23-2008 12:48 PM

Reply to: Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 11:27 AM

evidence please.

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Message 62 of 84 (483608) 09-23-2008 1:46 PM

Reply to: Message 61 by bluescat48 09-23-2008 12:48 PM

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.

Message 63 of 84 (483637) 09-23-2008 3:51 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 1:46 PM

All of your examples are man-made objects. Try some non man-made objects.

Message 64 of 84 (483640) 09-23-2008 4:00 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 1:46 PM

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?

By the way - can natural processes produce something as complex as a star?

Message 65 of 84 (483649) 09-23-2008 4:31 PM

Reply to: Message 64 by cavediver 09-23-2008 4:00 PM

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.

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.

Message 66 of 84 (483654) 09-23-2008 4:55 PM

Reply to: Message 63 by bluescat48 09-23-2008 3:51 PM

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)...

Message 67 of 84 (483656) 09-23-2008 5:07 PM

Reply to: Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 11:27 AM

No. What you detect is somebody basing a conclusion on what has been observed. It’s a common enough practice. The downside of this practice is that it sometimes forces those who follow it to draw conclusions that do not give them comfort…which is one of the reasons some prefer not to follow this path.

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.

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 were asked to examine the “designs they perceive in nature” and determine whether it was a good fit for the designs formulated by humans. You answered with this:-

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.

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.

You claim your god is “all knowing”. Are human designers “all knowing”? No. Bad fit #1.

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.

You then claim, “God created the materials through His infinite power”. Do human designers have infinite power? No. Bad fit #3.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Message 68 of 84 (483658) 09-23-2008 5:09 PM

Reply to: Message 66 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 4:55 PM

and thus not designed.

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Message 69 of 84 (483659) 09-23-2008 5:21 PM

Reply to: Message 68 by bluescat48 09-23-2008 5:09 PM

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.

Message 70 of 84 (483667) 09-23-2008 5:42 PM

Reply to: Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 4:31 PM

Do you think so? Your criteria for evidence must be extraordinarily weak.

No thanks - you just run along with it and be happy.

Message 71 of 84 (483670) 09-23-2008 5:49 PM

Reply to: Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 4:31 PM

You and Cavediver may be using the word "natural" in different ways. It's a notoriously difficult one, with so many uses that some dictionaries give 20 or more different definitions.

Basically, in one common usage in which "man-made" = artificial and therefore non-natural, then it's correct to say that watches are not natural. In the broader sense, all physical things are a natural part and product of the universe, as in some of Dictionary.com's 31 (!!!) definitions, here

So, the statement "watches aren't natural" and "watches are natural" can both be correct and incorrect, and require an explanation of the usage of the word.

This post is just to try and stop people talking at cross purposes, so please continue on Dogrelata's on topic theme!

Message 72 of 84 (483673) 09-23-2008 6:08 PM

Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid 09-23-2008 5:21 PM

Wheres the tautology? natural is not designed, I am just making an emphatic statement. Wheres the cyclic reasoning?

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Message 73 of 84 (483814) 09-24-2008 11:14 AM

Reply to: Message 67 by dogrelata 09-23-2008 5:07 PM

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....

Do you see the words "I predict" in yellow there... Does that refresh your memory of the OP?

And here was my response.....

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".

You may want to stop with the "predictions", since you obviously don't know what a prediction is....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Message 74 of 84 (483832) 09-24-2008 1:02 PM

Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid 09-24-2008 11:14 AM

What "design"? What "infinite" force?

What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".

Again, what design?

I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...

Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".

We don't.

No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc² does not stand for matter...

So, again, no.

You may want to stick just to screwing up the Law of Biogenesis. It doesn't look good to be clueless in so many fields.

Message 75 of 84 (483878) 09-24-2008 4:39 PM

Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid 09-24-2008 11:14 AM

Okay. The prediction I very clearly made is that I expected no positive responses from any IDers regarding my request that they personally ask the intelligent designer about how it formulated its grand design. I’m happy to repeat that prediction. To falsify it you would need to produce some evidence of such an exchange and any design information that passed from the intelligent designer to the enquirer.

I deliberately put the word ‘predict’ in quote marks to show I was not using it literally. It was shorthand for, I don’t know the first thing about you, but if you were to tell me your history now, I predict the part of your life where you are taught about your god predates the part where you start to learn some science. It was a prediction about what I would expect to learn should you choose to impart that information.

Incidentally that ‘prediction’ and invitation still stand. I’m not afraid of being proved wrong on a public forum.

As I’m sure you’re only too aware, the claims made for your god in the bible are wholly unverified and, as far as I’m aware, untestable.

I’m not going to address the “just a few..” instances you refer to, as Cavediver has already done so and there is nothing I could add (even if I had the depth of knowledge to do so).

The whole basis of the ID argument is in drawing a comparison between observed design by humans and implied design in nature by some alternative agency. You were asked to tell us what examination of the implied design you perceive in nature tells you about the designer. You claim “He is obviously superior. Infinite in fact” – what in the ‘design’ leads you to conclude infinity on the part of the designer?

The phrase “all knowing” is yours from Message 60, but without the quote marks. I’m sorry, but my read on “all knowing” is to be in possession of all knowledge of all things. You are obviously using the phrase to mean something else. Please clarify.

Are you aware of how often you cite how things occur in nature to justify what you believe your god is capable of? It tends to give a mixed message about what might be stirring deep within your sub-conscious. It also reads a bit like, this is how things occur in nature – my god can do these things as well.

I’m not sure where you get all this “infinite power” stuff from. It might be common currency in Sunday school lessons, but as far as I’m aware, the universe consists of finite amounts of mass and energy and always has done.

No, it’s a really bad fit. Design knowledge and intelligence evolves, in some cases over many centuries or even eons. Had Seymour Cray been born two hundred years earlier he could not have “formulated His grand design in His mind with His logic. Then He spoke and things came into existence”, thus bringing us the Cray supercomputer two centuries before he did. Cray’s contribution to the design intelligence that brought us his supercomputer was relatively small – without the design intelligence that was accumulated over the 150 years that preceded his, there’d have been no supercomputer.

Design intelligence is accumulated very slowly and tends to progress in a similar fashion. The idea of something like a universe being formulated in the head of a single entity who then brings its existence about is nothing whatsoever like the way human design evolves…unless you’re suggesting your god took the accumulated design intelligence of many earlier gods and tweaked his universe to suit its tastes or needs…

Is this the point at which we say, “oh yes I did, oh no you didn’t”? Clearly I do not accept your refutations, as they do not grasp the distinction between what human design consists of and what you are proposing on behalf of your intelligent designer.

This seems like a very defensive position to take. Instead of trying to refute my claim in this instance, you have chosen instead to characterize scientific endeavour as a belief structure similar to your own – the implication in the tone you use is that you see belief structures as being inferior in some way, so science has to be reduced to a belief structure to allow your religious beliefs an equal footing in you eyes.