|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
Lo again...
If God left evidence, that it was designed with forethought, then it isn't blasphemous to point it out then.
It'd also have to be included in the Bible and what Jesus said. Otherwise it'd be a new revelation, that God operated in this or that way, which means the Bible's wrong, and Jesus and God were lying. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as blasphemy. No new Gospels allowed, period.
I'm not sure that is true, could you provide some kind of source for that? It grants science authority over God, and your interpretation of what God meant precedence over what God actually meant. "Science says evolution of man took millions of years. The Bible says one day. Because I interpret it literally science must agree that it took one day, because science is always right even when it disagrees with God (me)." which contains lots of blasphemy, or the way which allows both to coexist "Scientifically man took millions of years to evolve, in the way God meant man was created in one day.".
If it is inconsistent with God, then it must by definition, be wrong. Unless it's not up to you to decide what's consistent.Christianity reserves this right for God. Christians must judge their own actions, not others, to say someone else's belief is inconsistent with God presupposes a perfect understanding of God. What is more likely, is that we have impefect understanding both of the universe and God, and that the apparent discrepancies aren't truly so. None of which affects our ability to live as the Bible and Jesus said we should, so why is there such furor? Politics. Taking His name in vain. It just says 'there is a designer, make of that what you will'. ID can say what it wants, Christians are defined by their obligation to their God, and must restrict what they say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
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?
Hi, you've pretty much got what I'm saying I think, it is the Christian God tho, because it's His rules as to what is and isn't blasphemy, that say it is. Especially with the use of the term "design" to describe what God does in a scientific way. Edited by Shh, : edit for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
Lo again
Here's the quote on anathema... Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
This is generally taken to mean any further revelation on the nature of God, but it is revelation from any source, be it the Bible's authors, or even Angels. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.This, in fact is what renders the Book of Mormon false in the eyes of most Christian sects. Anyway, starting a new job tomorrow, so may not be back 'til wednesday, talk to you then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It'd also have to be included in the Bible and what Jesus said. Otherwise it'd be a new revelation, that God operated in this or that way, which means the Bible's wrong, and Jesus and God were lying. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as blasphemy. No new Gospels allowed, period. But ID steadfastly refuses to say how the design was implemented. The fact that God did it was the first revelation, so ID is hardly making a new revelation.
It grants science authority over God, and your interpretation of what God meant precedence over what God actually meant. "Science says evolution of man took millions of years. The Bible says one day. Because I interpret it literally science must agree that it took one day, because science is always right even when it disagrees with God (me)." No - mankind is stupid and vain. Therefore, mankind's chosen method of uncovering the truth (science) is stupid and flawed. It often gets things right, but it also gets things terribly wrong. If anything man says contradicts something God says, then what man says is obviously wrong in some way. Therefore, if man says we took millions of years, but God says one day...it must be one day and man is inerpreting the evidence wrong. Thus - science is not always right. God is.
Unless it's not up to you to decide what's consistent. Christianity reserves this right for God. Christians must judge their own actions, not others, to say someone else's belief is inconsistent with God presupposes a perfect understanding of God. What is more likely, is that we have impefect understanding both of the universe and God, and that the apparent discrepancies aren't truly so. None of which affects our ability to live as the Bible and Jesus said we should, so why is there such furor? Politics. Taking His name in vain. If you think so, but this is not an ID issue since plenty of IDers who are creationists are not YECers. This issue is really a YEC one. As far as ID thinks, science agrees that God did it, but doesn't comment on the details.
ID can say what it wants, Christians are defined by their obligation to their God, and must restrict what they say.
Maybe they must restrict what they say, but that God did it, is not something they need keep silent on. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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 in a sense, God engages in trial and error? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes: So in a sense, God engages in trial and error? Well, the Biblical God does, with or without the "parallel" scenario. But I don't think the "real" God would have to. It's possible that the "real" God isn't concerned with blasphemy either but I think God's concerns are concerns about our well-being more than His own. If He is concerned about our blasphemy, it's because it hurts us, not Him. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
mod writes: So in a sense, God engages in trial and error?Ringo writes: Well, the Biblical God does, with or without the "parallel" scenario. But I don't think the "real" God would have to. The Biblical God of Genesis 2 is a trail & error guy, but the Biblical God of Genesis 1 is not. The God of Genesis 1 does no planning, no design, no trial & error, no rough drafts and teh outcome is "very good". Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6451 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
Despite the fact that I utterly repudiate ID and the whole idea of design in this context, I absolutely disagree with this particular point. Trial and error is not inherent in the idea of design. It is only a practical means for humans to acheive effective design despite their limitations. Trial and error is only required as part of a design process when you cannot accurate predict what the result of your design features will be. Design in less complex project can be done without trial and error even for human beings with their limitations.
Look I understand very well because trial and error is the process I depend on in computer programming. But trial and error is not always feasible in every situation where design plays a role, so I think that design is theoretically possible without any kind of trial and error at all. It is certainly possible in computer programming. It is only very very difficult. If God uses trial and error in the creation of living things it is because living things are inherently unpredictable and cannot be designed at all. Although I would not actually say that God uses trial and error, I think this is exactly the situation. Living things cannot be designed and anything which is designed cannot be alive. Edited by mitchellmckain, : continuation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
If God uses trial and error in the creation of living things it is because living things are inherently unpredictable and cannot be designed at all. Although I would not actually say that God uses trial and error, I think this is exactly the situation. Living things cannot be designed and anything which is designed cannot be alive. Either I'm not seeing where you make a distinction from design and from chance or you are using a non-sequitur to establish your point. On the one hand you cede the premise that God could not use trial and error, i.e. some sort of evolutionary propagation, and on the other hand, you posit that anything that is designed cannot be living. How can you render both notions useless and still have both lifeforms and God? “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6451 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
quote:I am not establishing my point with that statement. I allready made my point. "Trial and error is only needed as part of the design process when you cannot predict the result of design features due to its complexity and the limitation of the designer." Since I do not attribute limitations to the knowlege of God especially where mere calculation can predict the result of design features, I made the following conclusion. IF (I said IF) God uses trial and error then the inability to predict the result of "design features" is inherent in what is being created. But in that case, I think the use of the term "design" is utterly inappropriate, for I think that the idea of knowing ahead of time how the thing you are creating will function and what it will do is a part of what the word design means. Otherwise, the word "design" could be used to describe patently inapproapriate activities like teaching, saying that a teacher "designs" his students. I am stating the postulate that living things cannot be designed at all - that the idea of design and what it means to a living thing are utterly incompatable. The only way that a living thing can be "created" is in participatory process as described by words like, cultivation, caretaking, guidance, training, and teaching. It is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation and thus that they bear some responsibility for what they are. A process of design attributes all the responsibility for what is created to the designer, and thus something which is designed does not have the characteristics of a living thing. So I said that I would not use the words "trial and error" for God's creative process because I think it is tied in the above manner to human efforts at design without the ability to predict the result of design features. However the words "trial and error" are not completely inappropriate either. A teacher can successively try different techniques and ideas until he gets his point accross, for although "design" may be an inappropriate description of the teaching process, the teacher can still have definite goals in mind and try various things to achieve those goals. Likewise in the effort to achieve particular goals in the lifeforms of earth, "trial and error" may be an applicable description of parts of God's creative work. Hopefully, that answers your question because I am not very clear what you mean by disinguishing design from chance or what you mean by rendering "both notions useless". Edited by mitchellmckain, : No reason given. See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I am not establishing my point with that statement. I allready made my point. "Trial and error is only needed as part of the design process when you cannot predict the result of design features due to its complexity and the limitation of the designer." Since I do not attribute limitations to the knowlege of God especially where mere calculation can predict the result of design features, I made the following conclusion. IF (I said IF) God uses trial and error then the inability to predict the result of "design features" is inherent in what is being created. But in that case, I think the use of the term "design" is utterly inappropriate, for I think that the idea of knowing ahead of time how the thing you are creating will function and what it will do is a part of what the word design means. Otherwise, the word "design" could be used to describe patently inapproapriate activities like teaching, saying that a teacher "designs" his students. I assume this is a tacit recognition that God and the current paradigm concerning evolution would be incommensurate unions. But at the same time, you object that God designed His creatures in a, I'm guessing, Creation ex Nihilo type scenario. Is that a correct assumption? I'm wondering where this leaves you philosphically as far as causation for all that is actual.
I am stating the postulate that living things cannot be designed at all - that the idea of design and what it means to a living thing are utterly incompatable. The only way that a living thing can be "created" is in participatory process as described by words like, cultivation, caretaking, guidance, training, and teaching. It is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation and thus that they bear some responsibility for what they are. A process of design attributes all the responsibility for what is created to the designer, and thus something which is designed does not have the characteristics of a living thing. This is still as ambiguous to me as the first post. If God did not create or design or have His thoughts manifested in the form of space/time/energy/mass then you must be inescapably driven to alternative, which would be, all that is has always existed and will always exist. When you say God could not 'design' anything does that also incorporate an inability to Create anything? In other words, are you saying that our understanding of design prohibits God from 'planning', so to speak, because His thoughts do not move on a time-line?
So I said that I would not use the words "trial and error" for God's creative process because I think it is tied in the above manner to human efforts at design without the ability to predict the result of design features. How about "trial and success?"
However the words "trial and error" are not completely inappropriate either. A teacher can successively try different techniques and ideas until he gets his point accross, for although "design" may be an inappropriate description of the teaching process, the teacher can still have definite goals in mind and try various things to achieve those goals. Likewise in the effort to achieve particular goals in the lifeforms of earth, "trial and error" may be an applicable description of parts of God's creative work. But what do these fallible human attributes have to do with the concept of God when the very basis of perfection is measured by God, the very basis of good is measured by God, and the very basis for actuality is measured by God?
Hopefully, that answers your question because I am not very clear what you mean by disinguishing design from chance or what you mean by rendering "both notions useless". It sounded as though you were denying both design and chance for God. What other option exists? Life is either intentional or its unitentional. There is no third option. Edited by mitchellmckain, 08-16-2006 09:29 AM: No reason given. “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I assume this is a tacit recognition that God and the current paradigm concerning evolution would be incommensurate unions.
I wonder where you are getting that. It seems almost opposite to what mitchellmckain appears to be saying. Hmm! Perhaps by "the current paradigm concerning evolution" you mean the creationist view of evolution, If that's what you mean, then I guess that could be an implication of what mitchellmckain writes.
This is still as ambiguous to me as the first post. If God did not create or design or have His thoughts manifested in the form of space/time/energy/mass then you must be inescapably driven to alternative, which would be, all that is has always existed and will always exist.
I don't read that at all. I see mitchellmckain as having commented specifically on life and living things, and as not having said a word about the creation of space/time/energy/mass.
Edited by mitchellmckain, 08-16-2006 09:29 AM: No reason given.
LOL. You seem to have quoted too much, and missed putting a quote box around what you have quoted. I guess you just informed us as to the timezone settings in your profile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Hmm! Perhaps by "the current paradigm concerning evolution" you mean the creationist view of evolution, If that's what you mean, then I guess that could be an implication of what mitchellmckain writes. If evolution means trial and error, which indeed it would, then God and evolution are incompatible. Where is the ambiguity.
I don't read that at all. I see mitchellmckain as having commented specifically on life and living things, and as not having said a word about the creation of space/time/energy/mass. Because living things live in space, live in realtime, and are composed of matter and energy.
quote: LOL. You seem to have quoted too much, and missed putting a quote box around what you have quoted. I guess you just informed us as to the timezone settings in your profile. Okay............ What's your point? “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
If evolution means trial and error, which indeed it would, then God and evolution are incompatible.
But mitchellmckain has not said that God is incompatible with trial and error. What he has argued, is that God does not use trial and error as part of a method of design. Based on what mitchellmckain is arguing, there would be no problem with God designing evolution as a process. But he would deny that God was the designer of the organisms that thus evolved. At least that is my reading.
Because living things live in space, live in realtime, and are composed of matter and energy.
But that is not relevant to the point that mitchellmckain was making. Earlier, in Message 54, he wrote:
I think this is exactly the situation. Living things cannot be designed and anything which is designed cannot be alive.
That seems to summarize well the point he is making. The incompatibility he is seeing, is between "designed" and "living".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024