Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

OK Shraf, don't think I can go into 3rd level apperceptive rebuttals of rebuttals (etc.) at this time.I'll comment on some dissonant and coherent objections you seem to have made.Scientists, even naturalists, (I stand corrected) are often very passionate, both in and out of their professions. My atheistic collegue, my atheistic identical twin, and the last Darwin lecture I saw on the liberal channel all have seemed very passionate; much more than my narrow-minded redemptive observations lead me to be; for my passion in viewing so many redemptive observations is not well accepted (both within and without).Albeit those redemptive observations exist and must be reckoned with, even with scientific inquiry. Or what do you suggest?: Forget observing our material, soulish, and supernatural benefits? Explain them empirically? Deny the spiritual and/or psyche worlds as valuable? Stop reading our Bibles? Look for vicarious ethical solutions via science?Our vicarious sufferings (curse) demand valid appropriate scientific and ethical inquiry. Empirical answers are only a fraction complete: the gaps they have increasingly left in our knowledge demand a non-empirical (metaphysical) God-of-the-gaps argument, regardless of your or my arbitrary disdain for this God-of-the-gaps necessity.For one empirical question (whether answered or not) begets more questions until a vicious compulsively neurotic confusion is manifest ... not to deride emprical science. For example, with all we know about light, it increasingly evades our understanding: you and I will never fully appreciate light in all its phenomenal excellencies.When will this forum realize that empirical study is a dead-end street once it becomes an end instead of a means to an end, i.e., to negotiate any given event within our complex space-time continuum?Scientists (especially myself -- with 4 science degrees, that I now count dung that I may win Christ, or at least not forget the innumerable cosmic benefits we're blessed with): WAKE UP!Sleepily,Philip

Thanks for your indepth and thought out reply:I'll home in on excellencies, detachment, and sadism.To deny unquencheable excellencies observed and expected to be observed in nature seems bigoted even under empirical grounds. Light in the darkness for example: Light is unquencheable and harbours innumerable electromagnetic harmonies, symmetries, and proportions that we don't have time to speak in particular now. To state that all is chaos and darkness is bigotted, non-factual, and a lie. (Forgive my bluntness, Rationalist, I'm probably the biggest liar on this forum with regards to describing excellencies empirically; sorry)Sadistic and detached you are not. You seek truth as do I. You want answers that fit the empirical mold. I respect that as long as you realize empiricism miserably fails in dealing with excellencies (redemptive and otherwise) that we grapple with, i.e., to obtain control for our (human/humane) benefits.Now, this other argument remains: Excellencies (all-pervasive) are multiplied in nature and cannot be quenched via rational or empirical arguement. We are not in hell (yet), total darkness, chaos, and/or universal decay, as would be expected under a purely empirical model, no?

The first 9 appear relatively more excellent in their harmonies, symmetries, and proportions; albeit some, like the fungus are destructive (cursing) as well.

It appears you can not perceive redemptive observations in nature. Understandable: we're all apt to be empirically blind in this matter.But its foolish to deny your own let alone anyone else's redemptive excellencies using even empirical reasoning.Redemptive excellencies will always be dissonant to our supposed naturalistic grand scheme(s) and will always testify against those who exploit a purely naturalistic scheme.Whether you cite such redemptive events as Christ or directly oppose such events as observable (anti-Christ and/or anti-scientific) will never refute those events.Give it up, Shraf, please. Count your empirical blessings; see the silver lining on every observable cosmic event, despite the naturalistic tendency to deny those observed excellencies. Reasonably deduct that it was all designed by a Jesus-Christ-like ID.Why not steal a little faith in that redemptive science; get caught up in it; sing or cry a little prayer to it; love it; let it love you back, as it always has.

SHRAF: How do we tell an Intelligently-Designed system from a natural one that we
1) Don't understand yet, or
2) Don't have the capacity to understand?PHIL: Extremely loaded question ...
Discerning an IDS vs. and naturally occurring one seems a matter of metaphysics (vs. some empirical answer I can never give). For I don't think anything, despite its evolution, is SANS ID.David Bowie on public radio stated: "I don't think we (humans) ever evolved", when questioned about the evolution of his music. The same, I think, holds true with so called natural evolution vs. ID. The thinking process of Philip is different than Shraf, both ways of thinking are stubbornly scientific by each being.Shraf embraces the empirical (natural) at the expense of the spiritual; Phil embraces the spiritual as (more real scientifically) at the expense of the empirical.Now, I, Phil, respect Shraf's empirical science only insofar as it enables persons/humans to negotiate and control the environment appropriately for all.Like Bowie (despite his oft homosexual appearance), I think that nothing really evolved.I know you'll say I avoided your question (again). I'll answer that I'm only convinced (based on my perception of all the data including my nonempirical faith/biases) that:I don't think anything is really an empirical naturally occurring event alone, but that all systems are under the power of ID and merely APPEAR to be randomizing unintelligibly.Now ID is too apparent (to me) in:
Mysterious light, mysterious in that we don't really understand it!
Mysterious excellencies
Mysterious cosmic excellencies with the universal expanse
The extremely complicated earth with its water and billions of organic excellencies ...
Etc., etc., etc.
Time fails me.

Question the proposal vs the method.Empiricism, methinks, deals with methods accurately, until we get into the arts and words of communication.Are we grunting or creating with our words, Peter?Will empiricism ever allow ID? You and I who suffer in this curse (our doom being death and groaning) speak in what I pecieve as powerful terms; despite the mundaneness of these gruntings, empirically speaking.--Philip

R: What is your definition of redemptive?
P: Without looking it up I've used the broad modern definition: Essentially, redeeming would be: making something better when it should seem to become worse when left to itself.
I would apply to all cosmic levels. Obviously the term has subjective/biased connotations (non-empirical).R: What things are redemptive ...
P: Orderly arrangements in the presence of disorder: Light, matter, waters and their arrangements, skies with their complex protective and nourishing forces (clouds--> water, nitrogen fertilizing grounds, etc.)
Enzymatic molecules that have no mechanism of evolution possible.
Etc.R: and what aren't?
P: Because I think everything is redemptive via their ID and/or relations, I have no definite empirical nor rational entities that at this time would be non-redemptive in nature. Even the curse/cross that you and I bear (or should be bearing) seems redemptive in ways that we don't have time to discuss.I hear someone stating only a religious sadist would tell another to bear his cross; call me that sadist. The cross/curse you know has its redemptive effects that are seen in hindsite: Fires purge the environment, sickenesses build up the immune system, personal tragedies instill patience, etc.R: If I believe that something you believe is redemptive is not redemptive, how can we resolve our differences objectively?P: We can try to draw on the empirical data and form parsimonious conclusions together. Realize it's not empiricism for empiricism's sake, alone that forms our realities.R: If something is redemptive, how does it materially affect my state of being?
P: Materially affect you with benefits like: life, renewal, satisfyings, subjective joys and thankfulness toward the Redeemer all day long.R: How can you be sure that your are correctly identifying the things that are redemptive?
P: It is my meager opinion, based on the observed cosmic (empirical) data; I've thoroughly and repeatedly worked up the redemption hypothesis and am now more sure than ever. I may never empirically know anything on the other hand; albeit empirical study is all too-necessary in my complex distress.R: Why should I believe you instead of someone else with another unsupported notion as to the qualties of the universe (vedic scripture, islamic, etc.)?
P: My meager opinion/conclusion, while twisted by my weakness of language, fits the data in both temporal and grand schemes. There are many Vodoo's, Vedics, Islamics, Christians, etc., that at least hope in a grand redemptive scheme and/or have tested their hypotheses with the same conclusion: Redemptive excellencies occured, occur, and are expected to continue occur, on all cosmic levels.R: What do I do when I find empirical evidence that any person can percieve reliably and consistently which conflicts with ideas derived from your notions of redemptive excellencies (i.e. evolution for example)?
P: Rethink it in non-empirical terms. Its true that my notions appear to blend into the empirical randomness you and I observe scientifically.
But science is not limited to empirical events. For what if all the vexing and vanity of empirical randomization we observe is synchronous with ID events? Certainly you and I hope for synchronization of ID: that would give us hope of eternal redemption and life and rest from the curse; no? Why even the limited empirical knowledge is too deep and vast an ocean of excellencies to dismiss as non-ID!
For example, as a podiatrist with 4 science degrees, I only know a small fraction of what there is to know about the foot; its palliation, surgery, biomechanics, physiology, pathology, etc., etc., etc. Even a toenail is a fearfully and wonderfully excellency (I've debrided over 500,000 of them in 10 years).--Philip

Shraf: That's nice, but if' it ain't apparent to other people, then all you have is belief. Which is fine, of course, but not compelling to me in the least, and not useful to understanding how the universe works.Philip: While I can't disagree empirically, as if empiricism had the last say in the reality of our space-time continuum, I request you look again at our objectives:Our objectives seem perhaps to be to both understand (1) origins and (2) mechanisms (a.k.a. how the universe works), in an unbiased but productive manner (I've hypothesized beyond empirical truth in these objectives, because empirical truth seems to only provide us mechanisms)(1) I'll bypass origins for now.
(2) How the universe works mechanistically seems a pretty deep abyss for puny biologists and astronomers, despite the chunk of knowledge that is out there:Consider: We study light empirically and still don't know what this symmetrical harmonious orderly entity really is. Ah, but we call the phenomenon a name, "light", and fail to see the depths of what it really is. Truth is, our puny brains will never apprehend what light really is; we're as the blind leading the blind. Albeit we understand it's effects empirically.Surely, I won't be so empirically circular in my reasoning to state light itself is caused by electron quantum decriminalizations, why? Because light is merely emitted or absorbed during quantum changes.Bottom line: We simply cannot apprehend light empirically. We understand a minute fraction of its effects as well.Light, like our peculiar human existence, is a mysterious excellency which should allow for non-empirical theories, biases, hypotheses, and metaphysical inquiry, including rational and subjective inquiry. This would not be to demean the empirical study of it.As for Bowie, prayers, belief systems, and other surreal excellencies (if you will): these have always inspired many a scientist. My application sciences always mingle the subjective with the objective data: they cannot be divorced in understanding our humanity and universe.David Bowie (whose music I subjectively eschew) is an extremely experienced and brilliant composer. He knows how to manage and orchestrate bio-musical substrates a lot better than most Evo's and YEC's manage and orchestrate biochemical substrates. If you call music a biological phenomenon you can't blow off Bowie's YEC/ID schemes.In sum: I meagerly conclude: Merely studying empirical effects of the universe, even homologies and successions, don't give us a real understanding of what they are nor where they came from. The subjective and metaphysical studies of our mysterious cosmos must be heralded as scientifically valid inquiries insofar as they don't conflict with present-time empirical research.

IDEA, as you stressed, seems to me the real word and the real world.Note the trans-empirical worlds (if you will) and universes that seem to be caused by every idea/word in your consciousness.Thus, ideas/words seem to suggest another more valid reality than merely the precarious space-time continuum you and I manage, no?

To Rationalist and Peter:I leave you to your worlds at present, empirical and otherwise.More later when the discussion stirs more dissonant thoughts in my space-time consciousness/mind.Philip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Does that mean you don't have an response?

---

--Correct.--I require a more logically dissonant and/or disturbing rebuttal before my higher faculties compute in this regard.--This is not to say that I'm hand-waving; if you really want to discuss a point I'll try to respond as a favor for you.--Thank you for your time thus far.Philip