Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 162 (320049)
06-10-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Shh
06-10-2006 4:29 PM


Re: God does not design things like humans do
And I agree completely, the question is, how is this design?
Because it is an Agent conceiving of an end product.
And I reply again, then why the need to design?
This is going to go around in circles
There is not necessarily the need to design like a human designs. There is merely the conception of a perfect design (noun not verb) followed by its implementation.
But it isn't design. if it is design then what is it's purpose?
That's a theological question. Why did God bother with the whole thing in the first place? Beats the crap out of me, and the motivations of God are beyond us. This is the one question that I always wished the major religions answered.
Design is difficult to infer in natural things becausse they lack purpose.
Yes, it is very difficult to infer. However, some hope to show that an end product was preconceived by an agent by showing that an unintelligent process cannot design things at certain levels of complexity.
On the other hand, if God "designed" the universe, there should be signs, that our existence and circumstances are central to the universe. No such evidence exists, we are a momentary flicker in existence.
In all fairness, we don't know that no evidence exists, we just know that no evidence has so far been found. If God designed the universe there may be signs, but an entity with that kind of power can just as easily hide them should he choose. Perhaps getting a definitive answer one way or another would ruin the purpose behind this farce?
But it isn't design. if it is design then what is it's purpose?
OK, passing over the purpose issue since it has been addressed (either to your satisfaction or othewise), are you suggesting that evolutionary methods used to design objects are not design?
Removing God and ID from the equation the purpose of the design of living organisms is to replicate DNA.
The universe, however, is extremely easy to ascribe purpose to. In Biblical terms the purpose of Creation is to house humanity. Is it a good design? Or is there a vast amount of pointless effort?
And an omnipotent being need not worry about 'effort' - it gives us wonder and gives cosmologists a job - which might be part of the purpose.
How does it square up with "perfect design"?
You make the assumption that your reason the universe was created is the complete and total reason. If we do not know the full story, then we cannot judge if it is perfect, we can only take His word for it.
. But "always the best way" isn't a characteristic of design, design is "learn from the mistakes of others, as well as your own".
That's a characteristic of human design, not design.
". To apply this to God is blasphemy, to change the meaning of "design" to make God somehow more acceptable to someone is also blasphemy.
Perhaps, but I'm not changing the word design - you are the one that is limiting design to human methods of design as if there weren't other methods. We both agree there is at least one other design method - evolution.
so this one shows bad design purely on the basis of unneeded effort and complexity.
I imagine you realize now how you are not in a position to judge whether or not there is unneeded complexity since you don't know the purpose. Effort is irrelevant.
A flat Earth, with a small sun orbiting it, and some kind of layer over the top to keep stuff in, would have been far better "design".
Are you sure? Would we have done the same things and had the same history if that were the case? How do you know that the course of humanity is not part of the purpose behind it all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Shh, posted 06-10-2006 4:29 PM Shh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Shh, posted 06-11-2006 6:00 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 162 (320051)
06-10-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
06-10-2006 4:50 PM


anthrocentric
I didn't say anything about creating new words for each different methodology - only God's methodology.
Why create a new word just for God's methodology?
My take on the OP is that the use of the word "design" itself is blasphemous, because it describes God in human terms
I don't think the word design is just a human oriented word though. Non human things can design stuff, so why this anthocentric view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 5:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 18 of 162 (320060)
06-10-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
06-10-2006 5:08 PM


Re: anthrocentric
Modulous writes:
I don't think the word design is just a human oriented word though.
And I didn't say it was. Here's what I said:
quote:
(Message 15) ... the use of the word "design" itself is blasphemous, because it describes God in human terms (or beaver terms or evolutionary terms).
(Bold added because apparently your quote-mining machinery missed it the first time. )
Why create a new word just for God's methodology?
Because God's methodology is fundamentally different. From your own speculations: not having to test things first is fundamentally not design. It is something else.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 5:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 5:55 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 162 (320072)
06-10-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ringo
06-10-2006 5:22 PM


Re: anthrocentric
Bold added because apparently your quote-mining machinery missed it the first time
I saw that, but didn't see it as relevant - I have listed several non-human orientated design methods. There is conceivably more than I have not thought of...God based design being one of them. Why create a new word for God-design? Its still design, its just a different methodology, like Beaver design is different methodology and evolutionary design is different from them both.
Talking about God in terms of our experiences and knowledge is not blasphemous, its human. Otherwise God is blasphemous for sending himself down in Human form and teaching us parables to understand things.
Because God's methodology is fundamentally different. From your own speculations: not having to test things first is fundamentally not design. It is something else.
That's if you define design as being something that means having to test something first. I simply don't see why that has to be the case. You can create a new word for it if you must, but Intelligent Design conveys the meaning elegantly and simply. It means people who have never come across the concept before can quickly and easily understand the principle.
Design, to me, implies a preconceived idea on how something will be before making it. God conceives the human form and its workings, and then makes it. That is God-based design. Or, God has the conception of the human design and tweaks evolution to attain that end. He has the product held in His mind - that is the design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 5:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 6:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 162 (320084)
06-10-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
06-10-2006 5:55 PM


Re: anthrocentric
Modulous writes:
That's if you define design as being something that means having to test something first.
But the non-human oriented design methods that you named - beaver design and evolutionary design - do require trial and error. If you want to define "design" in a way that doesn't require testing, you'll have to come up with an example of design that doesn't require testing.
Talking about God in terms of our experiences and knowledge is not blasphemous....
And I didn't say it was. I said (or tried to say) that ascribing human characteristics to God is blasphemy. Calling God a "designer" is like calling Him a "fat old bastard".
Otherwise God is blasphemous for sending himself down in Human form....
Mebbe so, but that's another topic.
... Intelligent Design conveys the meaning elegantly and simply. It means people who have never come across the concept before can quickly and easily understand the principle.
The meaning that "Intelligent Design" conveys, quickly and easily, is the trial-and-error method that human designers use.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 9:08 PM ringo has replied
 Message 32 by Shh, posted 06-11-2006 6:07 AM ringo has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 162 (320253)
06-10-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
06-10-2006 6:18 PM


Good design = less errors. God design = no errors
But the non-human oriented design methods that you named - beaver design and evolutionary design - do require trial and error
Indeed. Evolution is the epitome of trial and error, beaver is slightly trial and error but with some forethought/instinct and humans have a lot of forethought, but still require trial and error. God can be seen as the epitome of forethought with no need for error. The first trial is right.
Think on it like this: I want to design a transportation device. I am perfect. So I conceive in my head of the perfect car design. I then build it. It is perfect and transports things in the best way that can possibly be done.
Did I or did I not design this transportation device? When I win an award will someone talk about the amazing device that is the design of the amazing Modulous?
Personally, I would consider that an example of perfect forethought design without the need for error, just trial. I don't see why, if perfection is possible, designs have to be flawed in their first implementation to be considered design. I have a body plan, it is a design. If an entity had the forethought to create me, it must have thought about what it was going to create first, then created it. Well, maybe it did do it some other way, but its not blasphemous to consider that God thought about creating man, how man would be built and what man's purpose would be, and then created it. The creation is perfect because the plan is perfect.
And I didn't say it was. I said (or tried to say) that ascribing human characteristics to God is blasphemy. Calling God a "designer" is like calling Him a "fat old bastard".
But you are still clinging to the idea that design is a human (or animal etc...) only characteristic, and I don't see why the idea that God actually conceived of man (designed him) before building him would be considered blasphemous.
I mean - God is Wrath, but he is also Mercy and Love. These are human characteristics that we ascribe to God. Only God is ultimate Wrath and total Mercy. So I fail to see the problem with considering him the paragon of design. He thinks it up (designs it in his head) and then builds it.
The meaning that "Intelligent Design" conveys, quickly and easily, is the trial-and-error method that human designers use.
I never got that, because I don't see why design has to be trial and error. We might think of it that we because we are crap designers. The better the designers we are, the less errors. If we are perfect, there are by definition no errors.
Ringo, your God-blindness is clearly keeping you from understanding the perfection of God and its ramifications. Wait, perhaps I'm taking the devil's advocate position too far. That said - I stick by what I say - from the Christian ID point of view there is nothing blasphemous about considering God as the paragon of designers.

The confusion might lie in the way we look at this.
Humans are designed. Everybody agrees that there is a design to the human body. And I mean design in the noun sense. As in (from American Heritage)
quote:
A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development
So there is a design. There must something that created this design. Perhaps it was a process of 0 forethought design (eg evolution). Thus evolution/nature is the designer.
Or perhaps something that had some forethought designed it, but there was some trial and error (eg aliens). Thus an extraterrestrial designed us, but also a design process (which is a weak evolutionary process) was used.
Or finally perhaps it was something that had 100% forethought and some kind of ultimate plan (eg God). Thus God designed us.
Given that religion probably started because of the design argument (there must something behind this order...) I fail to see how it can blasphemous to subscribe to the design argument...some pretty big religious leaders would have committed blasphemey
Also consider the verb definition of design, from the same dictionary.
quote:
1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
These are the definition Christian IDers use when they talk of design.
For example, in 1) we see someone fashioning it in their mind. Now when we fashion in our minds we still throw out bad designs, and modify the good ones. But what if the first concept we have is the right one, does it suddenly stop being a design?
Well maybe. But then look at 4) This is the big one - ID is contrasted to evolution since evolution has no plan, no goal and no purpose. ID says that there is a plan, there is a goal there is a purpose, that is to say there is a design and the designer is its architect. We did not arrive here in a planless goalless manner, but at the deliberate design of entity X.
You seem stuck this definition
quote:
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
And cannot seem to think of a non-systematic design.
Our body has a design. The architect of that design is the designer, he may not have systematcally gone "oops too much haem, reduce that a bit next time", he may simply said, we'll need a brain, which we'll put near the eyes, we'll put the nose there too, and the ears. In fact lets stick the mouth there too, keep it all together. It would be good to see what we are eating and smell it. This'll all be housed in the skull, which we'll cover in skin which...
If that's not designing something then I don't know what is I'm afraid.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 6:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:54 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 10:59 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 33 by Shh, posted 06-11-2006 6:20 AM Modulous has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 162 (320300)
06-10-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
06-10-2006 9:08 PM


Re: Good design = less errors. God design = no errors
God can be seen as the epitome of forethought with no need for error. The first trial is right.
someone hasn't read genesis 6 recently...
but its not blasphemous to consider that God thought about creating man, how man would be built and what man's purpose would be, and then created it. The creation is perfect because the plan is perfect.
yet man is anything but perfect, as the bible and its believers are the first to claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 9:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 11:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 162 (320304)
06-10-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
06-10-2006 9:08 PM


Re: Good design = less errors. God design = no errors
Modulous writes:
Did I or did I not design this transportation device?
Forgive me for being overly literal, but no, you did not design anything. You made up a story about a fictitious "design". If you did, actually, build that transportation device without trial and error, I would not call it "design". I'd call it "magic".
If an entity had the forethought to create me, it must have thought about what it was going to create first, then created it.
Why?
... its not blasphemous to consider that God thought about creating man, how man would be built and what man's purpose would be, and then created it.
So you assert. Some might say that making God have to "think" about something before He does it diminishes Him. (Thinking is a peculiarly human activity, no? It's peculiar when I do it, anyway. )
God is ultimate Wrath and total Mercy. So I fail to see the problem with considering him the paragon of design.
There's a difference between saying, "God is the paragon of (some quality)," and saying, "God is the paragon of (some occupation)." Don't you think "God is the paragon of prostitution" would be blasphemy?
I don't see why design has to be trial and error.
I have invited you to provide a (real) example of design that is not trial-and-error. That invitation still stands.
... your God-blindness is clearly keeping you from understanding the perfection of God and its ramifications.
Am I blinded by God or blinded to God?
The "perfection of God" would free him from having to think, plan or design, would it not?
perhaps I'm taking the devil's advocate position too far.
Hmm... I thought I was.
Everybody agrees that there is a design to the human body.
You don't know me very well, do you? But I'll let that pass.
So there is a design. There must something that created this design.
Isn't that just a rip-off of the old everything-must-have-a-creator gambit? Never flew before. I don't know why you think it will now.
If evolution/nature was the designer, no problem. Trial and error.
If aliens were the designer, no problem. Trial and error.
If God was the creator, with 100% forethought, it is not "really" design. It's magic.
some pretty big religious leaders would have committed blasphemey
Yup.
These are the definition Christian IDers use when they talk of design.
Exactly. The IDists deliberately use vague definitions to fool people.
When an ID propagandist says "design", he may mean something as vague as your conception of design. But the layperson listening to him is probably thinking of something much more specific - something very human. How many of us designed racing cars when we were kids? How many design renovations to our homes? How many of those designs are not trial-and-error?
You may be aware that the word "design" comes from the French dessiner = "to draw". Drawing is a large part of it and pencils come with built-in erasers.
The direct brain-to-prototype "design" is pure fiction (and of course, a prototype is not a finished product either).
If that's not designing something then I don't know what is I'm afraid.
Be afraid.
You seem to be confusing a design with a plan. Design is a trial-and-error workup to a plan. (And suggesting that God needs to plan could also be called blasphemy.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 9:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 11:59 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 24 of 162 (320320)
06-10-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by arachnophilia
06-10-2006 10:54 PM


Re: Good design = less errors. God design = no errors
yet man is anything but perfect, as the bible and its believers are the first to claim.
That's not really the point. Obviously man is flawed - but the whole point of the design the ultimate purpose. We are talking about God making mistakes and the implications of that. We know that God feels remorseful about stuff and the like, but all that is besides the point. I'm merely pointing out that it is perfectly possibly to be perfect, and design and create a final product. Theological technicalities such as God seems to make mistakes etc are not in the remit of my discussion, though it is another flaw in the reasoning that it is blasphemy to consider God as something that makes mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 10:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 11:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 162 (320327)
06-10-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
06-10-2006 11:31 PM


Re: Good design = less errors. God design = no errors
...yeah, what?
Obviously man is flawed - but the whole point of the design the ultimate purpose.
...so the fact that man is flawed is part of the perfect design? sounds a bit wanky to me.
Theological technicalities such as God seems to make mistakes etc are not in the remit of my discussion, though it is another flaw in the reasoning that it is blasphemy to consider God as something that makes mistakes.
no, i think it's an important point. if god can look at his creation, and say "oh, hm, it's not good that i've made man without a companion" and then makes man a wife -- god is using trial an error. if god can look at man and go "oh. damn, i'm sorry i even tried this." then god can make errors -- by his own claim.
you can say god is perfect all you want -- but we are not. and that buggers the whole argument. perfection cannot be an argument for design if the designor himself calls it imperfect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 11:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2006 12:07 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 162 (320336)
06-10-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
06-10-2006 10:59 PM


a design for life
If you did, actually, build that transportation device without trial and error, I would not call it "design". I'd call it "magic".
Don't forget that I'm perfect. Perhaps being perfect is magical, but that's not really the point is it? So, as far as you are concerned it is magic for an error free entity to design something without error.
Why?
You should read the next sentence...."Well, maybe it did do it some other way"
So you assert. Some might say that making God have to "think" about something before He does it diminishes Him.
So now God cannot think, he can only act? I think we are talking about some really messed up entity here, and is certainly well beyond any Biblical God, who has opinions and thoughts. If God has no forethought then you would be right. Would you like to check the Bible with me to see if God 'thinks ahead'?
There's a difference between saying, "God is the paragon of (some quality)," and saying, "God is the paragon of (some occupation)." Don't you think "God is the paragon of prostitution" would be blasphemy?
Probably yes. But this was in retort to the supposed blasphemy of ascribing human qualities to God. In itself, it is not necessarily blasphemy. Saying that God designs stuff is no different than saying God is an architect, a creator, a forgiver, a judge. Nay the architect, the creator, the forgiver, the judge. Are these occupations blasphemous considerations for God?
I have invited you to provide a (real) example of design that is not trial-and-error. That invitation still stands.
You are asking a human to give you an example of god-design. Sound like a reasonable request to you? If I could, I'd probably be God. I have shown you how design the noun does not imply trial and error and how it is used to demonstrate intent and purpose in contrast to the purposelessness of evolution. I really don't see what else can be acheived.
Isn't that just a rip-off of the old everything-must-have-a-creator gambit? Never flew before. I don't know why you think it will now.
As far as I am aware it has held true as a good axiom for everything else, including biology. The creator doesn't have to be sentient.
If God was the creator, with 100% forethought, it is not "really" design. It's magic.
It sounds like you are just arbitrarily defining away the problem, leaving us with not room for discussion. So, if there was 99.99999999999% forethought, but a little bit of error, that's design. But if you get it right first time, its not design it becomes magic. Why does it become magic? You'll need to justify your decision to call it magic.
Exactly. The IDists deliberately use vague definitions to fool people.
They aren't vague, they are quite specific. Design is used to contrast against purposelessness. It is used to indicate a plan, forethought and intent. Things which God certainly possesses.
When an ID propagandist says "design", he may mean something as vague as your conception of design. But the layperson listening to him is probably thinking of something much more specific - something very human. How many of us designed racing cars when we were kids? How many design renovations to our homes? How many of those designs are not trial-and-error?
Lesson: laypersons aren't really qualified.
When we look at the debate, what the IDers are actually saying it becomes clear that design just means it was 'intentional' - there was an intelligence behind the design (noun). It is not specific because ID is designed to be a general concept. It is very well designed to wash its hands of religion, while at the same time being basically compatible with them all.
You may be aware that the word "design" comes from the French dessiner = "to draw". Drawing is a large part of it and pencils come with built-in erasers.
I don't think argument by etymology will work here. Obviously the human concept of design is routed in human methods of design, the meaning in ID is not Intelligent Drawer. Besides I was under the impression that it came from the Latin 'to mark' (ie designate)
You seem to be confusing a design with a plan. Design is a trial-and-error workup to a plan. (And suggesting that God needs to plan could also be called blasphemy.)
A design is very much synonymous with a plan. The two don't mean the same thing, but they overlap and it is this overlapping area where ID is. The point is that it isn't an aimless meandering purposeless process, we came about by design, by intent, it was planned.
The intentor, the planner, the designer, could be God. He certainly has designs, plans and intents. I could tell you what kind of designs he has for blasphemers...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 10:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 06-11-2006 1:00 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 162 (320348)
06-11-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
06-10-2006 11:43 PM


perfection
...so the fact that man is flawed is part of the perfect design? sounds a bit wanky to me.
I'd agree. However, given that we don't know what purpose of being here is, what we were designed for, we don't know that ultimately these things are imperfections. They could be temporally perceived as imperfect, but all be part of a grand and perfect scheme that will be revealed right after these commercials.
no, i think it's an important point. if god can look at his creation, and say "oh, hm, it's not good that i've made man without a companion" and then makes man a wife -- god is using trial an error.
Right - I'm happy with that. And what I said still applies: it is another flaw in the OP. I was taking it from a different angle - I can't be expected to debate two people at once for a subject I'm basically against and come up with all the good rebuttals. I know I'm damned good, but gimme a break
you can say god is perfect all you want -- but we are not. and that buggers the whole argument.
Damned straight. Reply to the OP with this - I'd be interested to see the discussion get the attention it needs. You might want to look at the central point in the OP which says:
quote:
Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
That's blasphemy isn't it?
I was merely gunning for the position of 'OK let's assume God doesn't err...surely He can still be a designer'. Your position shows another (major) flaw in the OP, go rebut spidey!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 11:43 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 162 (320380)
06-11-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
06-10-2006 11:59 PM


Re: a design for life
Modulous writes:
Don't forget that I'm perfect.
Sorry, I forgot that. If I had remembered, I might have had the sense not to debate you.
So, as far as you are concerned it is magic for an error free entity to design something without error.
No. As far as I'm concerned, magic is not design.
So now God cannot think, he can only act?
I didn't say that. I suggested that He doesn't need to think.
I think we are talking about some really messed up entity here, and is certainly well beyond any Biblical God, who has opinions and thoughts.
Did I say anything about the "Biblical" God? Don't IDists make a point of saying that "the Designer" doesn't have to be the Biblical God?
Would you like to check the Bible with me to see if God 'thinks ahead'?
I hang out in Bible Study all the time. Shall I put the coffee on?
Saying that God designs stuff is no different than saying God is an architect, a creator, a forgiver, a judge.
Just to nitpick, a creator and a forgiver are not exactly analogous to human occupations, so I'll skip those two. Architects are designers, of course. They work by trial and error, so yes, calling God an architect is kinda blasphemous.
As for judges: I think you have the comparison backwards. We expect our judges to be paragons of fairness, etc. We expect them to be as perfect as humans can be. We do not expect them to work by trial and error. ("Oh, well, we executed an innocent man. Better luck next time.")
Judges are (supposedly) as god-like as humans can be - though making them too god-like would be blasphemy too.
You are asking a human to give you an example of god-design.
No. I'm asking a human to give an example of a design that he claims is possible - a design executed without trial-and-error. (I could swear I was typing English on this end.)
This is a science forum, is it not? If you claim that something is possible, is it not reasonable to ask you for evidence?
The creator doesn't have to be sentient.
I'm not sure that a term like "sentient" should be applied to God.
So, if there was 99.99999999999% forethought, but a little bit of error, that's design. But if you get it right first time, its not design it becomes magic.
If it was first time every time, I'd call it magic. Any dope can fluke it right once in a while.
Why does it become magic? You'll need to justify your decision to call it magic.
Well, you're the one who claims 100% perfection is possible without trial and error. I would suggest that you need to justify calling that anything but magic. Once again, show us an example of it happening. Otherwise, you might as well say that pink unicorns can fly without wings.
Design is used to contrast against purposelessness. It is used to indicate a plan, forethought and intent. Things which God certainly possesses.
Not "certainly" at all. I have suggested that God doesn't need to plan or think. The need to plan and think are human qualities. Ascribing them to God diminishes Him.
... what the IDers are actually saying it becomes clear that design just means it was 'intentional' - there was an intelligence behind the design (noun).
And what I am actually saying is that "intent" and "intelligence" are human qualities. Ascribing them to God can be considered blasphemous.
I don't think argument by etymology will work here.
*shrug* Stream-of-consciousness may not be the best "plan", but it's all I got.
... I was under the impression that it came from the Latin 'to mark' (ie designate)
From the Latin, through the French. Do I have to mark out every step of the route?
The point is that it isn't an aimless meandering purposeless process, we came about by design, by intent, it was planned.
And that is where the blasphemy lies - in ascribing to God the need to plan.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2006 11:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-11-2006 1:10 AM ringo has replied
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 06-12-2006 8:03 AM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 162 (320385)
06-11-2006 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
06-11-2006 1:00 AM


a design for a self healing universe
If God's design was for a system that was selfhealing where life would continue, is that something that could be considered? Is ID at the most basic level, the forces, the process of evolution, the very basic structure of the universe unthinking blaspemy?
If the design is for basic fabric of a universe where even the unimaginable destruction of a star provides building blocks for new creation, is that unthinking blasphemy?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 06-11-2006 1:00 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 06-11-2006 1:44 AM jar has not replied
 Message 34 by Shh, posted 06-11-2006 6:40 AM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 162 (320396)
06-11-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
06-11-2006 1:10 AM


Re: a design for a self healing universe
jar writes:
If God's design was for a system that was selfhealing where life would continue, is that something that could be considered?
Yes. That is exactly what I would consider.
Is ID at the most basic level, the forces, the process of evolution, the very basic structure of the universe unthinking blaspemy?
No. I'm refering to ID as peddled by the "ID movement". Maybe I should call it IDTM.
I'm suggesting that it could be considered blasphemy to say that we can detect evidence of that basic-level design - that we can lift God's fingerprints, as it were. I'm suggesting that God doesn't need to "plan" in any sense that we can understand, that His "design" is not a design in any way that we can understand, and that He doesn't leave fingerprints. We can see His handiwork and understand to some extent how the components interact, but we can not see Him.
If the design is for basic fabric of a universe where even the unimaginable destruction of a star provides building blocks for new creation, is that unthinking blasphemy?
I am mainly objecting to the concept of "design" in that it compares God to humans. The "basic fabric of the universe", what happened before the Big Bang, etc. are things that we may never be able to understand. That concept of design is so far above human design that I feel comparing the two can be considered blasphemy.
I hope that's clearer.
Edited by Ringo, : No reason given.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-11-2006 1:10 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024