Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8186 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 6:05 PM
61 online now:
Aurelia, AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 54 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,073 Year: 29,914/28,606 Month: 1,643/3,328 Week: 419/674 Day: 62/70 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   The Constraints of Design
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 61 of 84 (483599)
09-23-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 11:27 AM


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.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 1:46 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 380
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 responded

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

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 63 of 84 (483637)
09-23-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 1:46 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 1:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:55 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 84 (483640)
09-23-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 1:46 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Uhhhh.....natural processes cannot produce a watch.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 1:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:31 PM cavediver has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 380
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 responded

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 380
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 responded

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

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 1834 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 67 of 84 (483656)
09-23-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 11:27 AM


Re: Prediction falsified!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Do I detect some cockiness in this statement?

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:-

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 11:14 AM dogrelata has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 68 of 84 (483658)
09-23-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 4:55 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Non-man made objects would be natural by definition (scientific definition)...

and thus not designed.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 5:21 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 380
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 responded

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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 70 of 84 (483667)
09-23-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
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.

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

I'll give you the opportunity to rethink your argument and retract it or I will run with it.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 108 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 71 of 84 (483670)
09-23-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
AlphaOmegaKid writes:

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.

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 72 of 84 (483673)
09-23-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 5:21 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?

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


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 5:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1382 days)
Posts: 380
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 responded

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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 74 of 84 (483832)
09-24-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Prediction falsified!
The "design" of the non-material infinite force in the universe called gravity.

What "design"? What "infinite" force?

The design of all the "fundamentals" which are part of the anthropic principle.

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

The design of the mind and consciousness.

Again, what design?

These are just a few evidences in the natural universe that lead to a suggestion of an "all knowing" and "all design knowledge" God.

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

Gravity, therefore is a non-material infinite power source that science recognizes must have existed at the beginning.

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

If science can reason a non-material infinite power source

We don't.

We know for a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable.

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

Matter is finite in quantity in the unverse. Gravity is infinite.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM cavediver has responded

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 1834 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 75 of 84 (483878)
09-24-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Prediction falsified!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

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....

dogrelata writes:

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?

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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?

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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....

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).

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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?

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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…

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014