Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

What is your definition of redemptive?What things are redemptive and what aren't?If I believe that something you believe is redemptive is not redemptive, how can we resolve our differences objectively?If something is redemptive, how does it materially affect my state of being?How can you be sure that your are correctly identifying the things that are redemptive?Why should I believe you instead of someone else with another unsupported notion as to the qualties of the universe (vedic scripture, islamic, etc.)?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)?

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]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.

quote:

---

Well, then, Theistic Evolution it is!

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

1)Who cares what a rock star thinks about Biology.

​

2)Our ways of thinking are not the same. I am willing to look at evidence and change my mind. You hold a pre-conceived notion of an IDer, and fit all the evidence into this notion.

​

Different.

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Gee, show me a single generally-accepted definition of science which includes "spiritual" as evidence and I will stop rolling my eyes.

​

quote:

---

Now, I, Phil, respect Shraf's empirical science only insofar as it enables persons/humans to negotiate and control the environment appropriately for all.

---

​

I am interested in understanding nature, first and foremost. Through understanding comes the ability to manipulate the environment.

​

Like I have said, we didn't eliminate smallpox by spiritual means. We studied it with emperical methods until we figured out how to eradicate it.

​

We didn't pray it away.

​

quote:

---

Like Bowie (despite his oft homosexual appearance), I think that nothing really evolved.

---

​

OK, but you're wrong.

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

OK, then your answer is that there is no way to tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one we don't understand or don't have the capacity to understand.

​

That is my point exactly.

​

Yippy skippy, you finally got it!

​

[QUOTE]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.[/B]

---

That's nice, but if'n 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.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
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?

---

To be pedantic ... niether.Words are just an expression of the thoughts behind them.
The thought represents a 'creation', the word simply expresses
it.It is quite possible to string together a list of words that appear
to be communication to someone reading them ... that does not
mean that there is a 'creation' behind them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

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.

---

If there is evidence which, should it exist, would support ID in
preference to other proposals, then of course empiricism
could allow ID.That's basically what people here have been asking ... 'Is it
testable?'As for the other ... the words may well be mundane, but as I
said above, they are only one way of expressing the IDEA
behind the phrase.

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?

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.It may be true that we don't see the "real essence" of something when we study it empirically. However, it is also very apparent that when we use non-empirical methods, we see even less than that.Put simply, empirical objective study of nature is the best method we have of learning about it. Spirtual, psychic, or other subjective pretend science has always led to contradictions with reality, sometimes spectacular contradictions (as in the case of the flat earth, geogentrism, and evolution denial).If you think you're going to learn more about the universe by closing your eyes and praying about it, you're going to be sadly mistaken.

We, as animals, have a peculiarity which means that we
view our surroundings with the bias of our pasts.That does not mean that our surroundings don't exist
objectively (necessarily).Given sufficient independent investigators we can conclude that
a consensus will filter out much of the 'noise' of the
subjective.Things are there, and all actions leave a trace (if briefly).

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

Does that mean you don't have an response?

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

Your argument seemed to be that a subjective reality was
more 'real', implying that empiricism couldn't be used
as a meaningful investigative weltenshaung.I questioned the objective reality if the world, in that
noise generated by independent subjective appraisals could
be filtered out via amalgamation.You folded.