|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days)  Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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: (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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes: Unless I am mistaken this thread is examining the Designer as the Biblical God. Or why the blasphemy talk? I don't think the OP mentions the Biblical God. I am talking about the possibility/probability of blasphemy. (I may have overstated it a time or two? )
We can talk all about prophecies, and God warning people about something that is about to happen (eg Noah)...clearly thinking ahead.  You'd have to discuss that with somebody who believes that Bible prophecies were accurate.
What if you've got it backwards for design? We are made in God's image after all... Then it wouldn't be design - it would be reproduction.
I never said God-like design was possible (I don't believe in anthro-God!), but its philosophically conceivable. I have no interest in philosophical conceptions. Design is not a philosophical conception - it's about something real. It's a brain-to-reality process, not a striclty in-brain process. I think Shh in the OP has described design as an abstract form of trail and error. Whether the errors are filling the junkyard or the wastepaper basket or the back corners of the brain, they're still errors.
If you claim that something is possible, is it not reasonable to ask you for evidence? If we are going to exclude the reasoned argumentation of that clause then God should be off limits entirely, otherwise whenever the debate got to some level evidence would be required. Which is why we distinguish the science forums from the religious ones. In the religious forums, you can make vague philosophical conceptions about what is "possible". The science side expects some grip on reality.
I am getting this feeling that the argument is going to boil down to ' you can't use words to describe God, therefore...' Well, there is that, but I think it's outside the scope of the OP. For the purpose of this topic, we're talking about a pretty severe bringing down of God to the level of a "designer". It's the next thing to calling Him "the guy in the next cubicle".
You have to explain why it is magic, and what magic is before I can really answer your questions about it. You can't just define it as magic and expect that to settle it. You're talking about a "design" methodology which can not be understood or duplicated, which can only be discussed as a "philosophical conception", for which you can provide no concrete examples. What else am I expected to call it except "magic"?
I have a feeling you are defining magic as 'the impossible happening' or some such. In which case you are defining it as impossible, QED How would you define "magic"?
God doesn't need to plan or think? Of course not.
Nevertheless, when God creates something it has a design. So you assert. Seeing "design" where there is no design process is a delusion. Any real design is created by some sort of design process. That process leaves "fingerprints", as it were - tentative sketches, botched calculations, failed prototypes, etc. Something like that ought to be detectable, otherwise how can you say there is a "designer"?
Perhaps language is woefully inadequate for the job, in which case it doesn't matter what we say, its blasphemy and/or diminishes God. Well, yes. Blasphemy is in the attitude, not in the words. That's why I have no qualms about writing "God is a fat old bastard" to make a point. Those words are equivalent to "God is a designer" or "God is a pastry chef". It's blasphemy only if you believe it.
God never mentioned that such a thing is blasphemous that I can remember. Did you ever explain to your dog why you are allowed to eat off the table and he is not? He has his role in the household you have yours. His role does not involve questioning your role, or even trying to understand your rules. His role is to do his best to keep you happy. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes: The OP talks about the Christian God, who is Biblical. Yikes!  Right you are. Apparently I wasn't very well designed. 
If you want to argue from the point of view of a God that you have conceived then you are right in everything that you say, by definition. So you're right and I'm right but we're talking about two different things. I can live with that. Since Shh agreed with me in some of his earlier posts, though, it seems to me that his thinking is closer to mine (in spite of a possible imprecision in the OP).
... even if we are copies of God, not all of nature is a copy of God. Isn't it?
God knows about all the bad designs (since he knows everything) so I guess he has thought up all the bad ones as well as the OK ones, and the best ones. Well, there you run into time problems. If God thought up the bad designs "before" the good ones, that would be trial and error, wouldn't it?
ID is not blasphemy because there is no evidence that blasphemy exists! Good point.
If the guy in the next cubicle designed a whole functioning universe, a morality system, life, thought, souls, and all that shebang, I'd be happy to call him God. Comparing God to Wally (or Dilbert) could also be called blasphemy.
So anything which is philosophical in nature is thus magic? Well, no.... Philosophy is at least an attempt to understand things. Magic is not. You may be looking at ID from a philosophical viewpoint but I would suggest that the IDists are not. Their theme-song seems to be, "we can't understand it, therefore ID". That's magic - A to Z with no pathway.
Would it be easier to consider it like the above. God has done a process, but in parallel rather than in series. He knew all the possibilities, including the bad designs, but simply did not implement them. No, I don't see a parallel process as any different from trial and error. If human designers have several teams working on various approaches and the best approach is selected, the others are all failed trials.
So if your attitude is that God being the ultimate designer of everything in the universe is actually great and holy and good, then it's not blasphemy? Blasphemy is bad attitude. Edited by Ringo, : spelling Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
