Design and the intelligence hypothesis

This is the start of a new topic that grew from another.In Moral Arguements for God {Faith and Belief} I answered a statement by 1.61803 as follows. Since the intelligent design theory requires that anything of great complexity requires that there must be a designer behind it {as in your "design elements"} then we are left with the puzzle of what designed the designer since,it is reasonable to assume,that the designer is of even greater complexity.So,if we ask what designed the designer necessary to support your hypothesis, and,continuing on in like fashion ad infinitum, what designed the designer of the designer of the design,we quickly see the absurdity of the position. But,in designing a system,we then need to ask the mechanism by which this was accomplished,since,in order to place a pattern in nature it seems necessary to place constraints upon the degrees of freedom of the system that the laws of nature reflect.The existence of the mechanism would proceed again,as with the designer,as a consequence of its complexity,into absurdity.Jar thought this was off-topic but would like to argue it on its own,hence the thread.Charles Knight alsos mentioned that this was along similar lines to discussions he wa carrying on elsewhere in which the ideas of infinte regression and Occam's Razor come into play.In the theory of intelligent design the complexity we observe within nature purportedly cannot be due to other than a designer of great intelligence.
However,an enigma arises when we apply the principle of intelligent design to the proposed intelligent deisgner.Any intelligent designer would,I assume,be quite the more complex than that which he designs leading to the question,which arises from the position taken of intelligent design,what deigned the designer? Naturally,the futrther consequence is that this designer now needs to be addressed in the same manner and we thus arrive at the infinite regression which of course is ludicrous.It answers nothing and adds unenecessarily to the phenomena a condition that is never observed.Occam's razor is often quoted in this forum and for clarity we will define this term.Between competing explanations of a given phenomena the one which makes the least number of assumptions sufficient to explain the evidence is to be given the greatest weight of credibilty.This same issue arises of believers of gods since the common escape is that the god itself is not subject to observation as a consequence of being a god. If the proposed god is not subject to observation that is without conditions{believe first,then see}it is not,therefore, an explanation at all
So is the idea of an intelligent designer or a god actually the answer to the question of the complexity of the world about us or is this a means to avoid the hard work of teasing out nature's secrets?We should probably run this in miscellaneous topics.

jar This sentence highlights is where the difficulty lies jar.Taking things as you do on faith is fine as this is a personal decision arrived at by emotional means.However,your statement here,contadicts itself since on the one hand you state that god is. You also state he was not created.You do this from the position of our world so I am wondering how something can be yet not have been a part of the creation.Am I assuming wrongly that that you are equating god with being as an integrated part of the world or not?If he was not created what was he? What origin could god have? This again runs the course of problems that arise with infinite regression in that something that never had a beginning cannot have come to exist since this seems to require a temporal evaluation.We cannot simply state god always existed since we again are trapped by the notion of temporal cause and effect.

jar This is my point though.In the same way it is meaningles to talk about time "before" time itself it is my impression that it is meaningless to speak of a "god" as an existence seperate from existence itself.To say that god had no origin is the same as saying god had no beginning.To have had no beginning implies to have never existed in the first place.What does it mean to say that a god is beyond time and space without,in the same breath,disabling the ability to meaningfully interact with time and space?I know of the faith aspect of your position jar I ask simply to clarify the puzzle.As an aside I recieved an answer from 1.61803 in the other thread which begat this topic.Here is the reply. Firstly to clear the historical point Heisenburg actually said It seems he accepts the absurdity of the infinite reression as no problem without either actually saying so or answering the difficulty inherent in the absurdity.This seems to be a dodge but I will endevour to bring him to this thread and see if we can get an answer.This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-07-26 12:32 PM

jar We experience time because it is motion that requires time or more precisely space time.To initiate and complete an action requires spacetime[/i].To say that god is unlimited does not release him from the requirement of spacetime in order to accomplish an action.So god needs spacetime in order to accomplish yet if there is no spacetime there is no way such a god can do anything.We also cannot say that god has no limits since this itself also leads into infinite regression of a sorts.To have infinite energy means to have energy that cannot be restrained which would,if god were to harness it,thereby limit said energy but unharnessed would allow no god that harnessed such.The understanding that time had a beginning is not necessarily so though the means of its existence would be far subdued to what it is in our present universe.If,as is presently suspected,spacetime is quantum in nature,then there is no applicable meaning to the notion of a zero time allowed in the universe.

jarSo what would it be with god? Is there a way in which action exists without time?

jar OK,jar,what is the means by which your curiously gender confused god :} exists without time that allows for an action to be accomplished since any attempt by him to perform an act requires time in which to do it?
To have the universe be a subset requires some way of determining that this god forms a greater domain yet other than taking it on a faith wherein you fashion an imagined scenario to account for the qualities you require of god in order to explain the universe we need establish some means by which we can avoid suffering the same contradictory fate as ID does. Have you read up on Littlewoods Law of Miracles?check this website http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&ar...
It is not an unusual thing for such to happen.I am also curious about your use of the term time frame.Are you able to express what it means to have a time frame and how and why would god make a time frame different?
Now what is the physical effect that comes into play when god communicates in space time? In other words,what is there different that is not there when god is not communicationg? Why or why not can we demonstrate the change that I presume would occur as a result?

randman You say that he is present in every point in time and as such exists apart and beyond time.These are contradictory states.You are throwing phrases together than do not support one another.To be beyond time means to not be affected by time.However without the presence of time actions cannot be accomplished since the passsage of time is what allows for events to occur.A god without time cannot effect an action else he has,by definition employed time.

carediver If you were the computer on which your program ran you might begin to have something.Can you remove "time" as a feature of your computer model and still run the program?

---

For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in
the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy.

cavediver What do you mean by "his" time as opposed to "our" time? Have you evidence that there is a "different time" that could be utilised? If not then I suggest you properly define what you mean since time has definite properties that are observable. Perhaps you could further elaborate on what you mean here.What evidence do you base this statement upon and why would you take this position?

cavediver What I am talking about is the relationship between time and space. Can you remove the time portion of the program and still run the program?

cavediverJust a bump to see if you have a chance to respond to my quetion as put forth in post #45?This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2005-08-05 08:47 AM