Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?

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

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. 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? How about "trial and success?" 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? 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

If evolution means trial and error, which indeed it would, then God and evolution are incompatible. Where is the ambiguity. Because living things live in space, live in realtime, and are composed of matter and energy.

quote:

---

Edited by mitchellmckain, 08-16-2006 09:29 AM: No reason given.

---

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

This is what I'm confused on. You stated that God does not design anything by trial and error. Isn't that the very hallmark of the theory of evolution? Obviously it is. So, I'm asking how you how that tenet of yours does not conflict with its own premise. It sounds as though you are beginning to understand my objection. God, if He/She/It/They exist, then at some point had to engineer, i.e. 'Design,' all that is actual and to bring it to fruition. That's why I'm not understanding how you can maintain your beliefs as congruant. Alright, this explains what you meant in better terms. To me it seemed as though you were weaving in and out of cosmological, teleological, ontological, and philosophical notions. It was difficult for me to understand just what you were arriving at. I understand what you are saying now. I don't believe that God tries and tries again. I believe He tries and succeeds. But to able to quantify that is an impossible task for humans, (this all assuming that God exists). Yes, exactly! I think we are both on the same wavelength. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Well, this precisely why the First Cause argument is going to trek on for as long as humans are alive on earth. Its all speculation. However, based on logic, I think some theories stand out in superiority than others-- namely, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, et al, the Aristotlean argument. Nonetheless, it appears that we will be in a perpetual stalemate.

---

“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

If God uses trial and error for anything then you are tacitly asserting that He is neither omnipotent nor omnisicent, because if He was omniscient He would know how His guidance would turn out before the event happened in real-time and He couldn't be omnipotent because trial and error convey fallibility. That's straying very far from the prevailing Christian ethos (not that my saying so makes it right or wrong, just playing the Devil's Advocate here).As well, why couldn't the Protagonist of the universe Design living things? Even if He designed the pathways to make life possible then He created something from absolute nothingness. A Creator needs to 'create' in order to be justifiably referred to as such, no?

---

“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

Well, if you can't manage to eloquently articulate your thoughts concerning one's beliefs, let some one who said it more fluently than yourself get the point across for you. And so, I now defer my explanation to C.S. Lewis who puts my thoughts into words better than I can. In ine of his chapters called, "Time and Beyond Time," he probably most closely embodies what I believe is how God can establish the existence of time without Himself being affected by time.This is going to be annoying because I have to freehand it from a book. But, its for a worthy cause, eh?"A man put it to me this way: 'I can believe in God all right, but what I cannot swallow is the idea of Him attending to several hundred million human beings who are addressing Him at the same moment.' And I have found that quite a lot feel this.

​

Now, the first thing to notice is that the whole sting of it comes in the words 'at the moment.'... What really becomes difficult is to have God doing too many tasks in the same moment. Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment comes and disappears before the next comes along... That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this series of Time-- this arrangement of past, present, future is not simply the way life comes to us but the way thngs really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to present to future just as we do. But many learned men do not agree with that. It was the Theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in Time at all: later, Philosophers took it over: and now some scientists are doing the same thing.

​

Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of of moments following one another... If you put it this way, He has all eternity in which to loisten to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames... We have to leave behind A before we can get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B. God, from above or outside or all around, contains the whole line, and sees it all.

​

Another difficulty we get if we believe as such... if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God os progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God forsaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do the,. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visable to Him in just the same we call it 'today.'" -C.S. LewisAlright this is taking too long. In other words, God lives every moment as if it were 'now' because space does not contain Him, and space is intimately connected to time. This grants God the ability to know all, yet still allow those beings who are bound by time to make their own choices, because always lives in the 'now.' And God being infinite, the 'now' is always 'now.' Any event that takes place in real-time has already been lived out, is being lived out, and will always be lived out. This is not the easiest concept to grasp because we are so utterly bound by the laws of physics, but with quantum mechanics and string theory, and whatnot, we are just on the cusp of such a discovery. We all knew that time travel was theoretically possible, but now theologians, philosophers, and astrophysicists are beginning to place into theory what we all suspected-- that space-time only matters to physical being. We know nothing of the metaphysics other than its potential. In any case, that's how I feel on the subject. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : 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

Perhaps not as much as Newcombs Paradox. Interestingly enough, a paradox is only a seemingly insoluble answer. But it isn't. And the inventor cannot tie God into this inanimate, calculating machine. Case in point: The problem of predicting the output of a computer program to the program. The program requests that make a prediction yourself aso that it can make a prediction itself based on the answers you give it. The supercomputer is designed as such that that once it gathers one prognostication after the other, the answer you gave outloud will be false, although, your answer can easily differ in your mind from your stated answer. Only on the surface level this appears to present a problem to free will. Think of it this way, if God were predicting our behavior and we knew all about it, we would deliberately act to falisfy the prediction once we knew it. But this is the same as "Predictor" in the Newcomb's Paradox. It has nothing to do with any actual predictions because it requires input in order to give an answer-- an answer based on odds.There is no contradiction. It makes perfect sense. If God were effected by time, he'd in fact be a material being. Think about it. How could a Being of this magnitude not be above Hos own creation and to remain in absolute control over His creation of time if He was not outside of our dimension? Its so simple, yet it is difficult to fully grasp. No, that was very simple to answer. If you don't give the supercomputer an answer, then it won't make a prediction. And even if you did give a verbal answer, you could be thinking in your mind something different, and in effect, totally dismantle the argument. Evades the question? What is unknowable for you? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“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

We don't 'know' that anymore than we 'know' the veracity of superstring theory. Its all theoretical. But then again, we as human beings don't 'know' even what we think we know. I'd guess we'd have to go into one long discourse on reality. Such wild vagaries we've concoted.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good. The philosophers promised them to you but they were not able to keep that promise.” -Blaise Pascal

I did answer it. I said I don't know with 100% empirical veracity. But then again, who can offer that? Its an inference. And before you demonize an inference, just know that upwards of 95% of things we 'know' come by way of inference. In other words, we may not know even the things we think we know. It could all be an illusion, right? I can play the semantics game too. That's why I said perhaps we need to start first with the reality of reality. You are straying into the realm of epistemics, leading us into a paradox and a crux that really can't be solved without first defining some truths. Until we establish an agreement on some truisms there realy is no basis for even arguing. If God is an incompetent bozo then that would explain your disposition. Ah, I'm just messing with you. In all seriousness, you are right that I could not possibly 'know' that anymore than I could know if He has screwed up many times. But consider this: The very notion of perfection comes from God. If God blundered then God couldn't even exist because the very concept of perfection and being come directly from Him. That would insinuate that something must be higher than God. And if that's the case, its far beyond our ability to discern something so grand. How did I do that? What I've noticed about you and how you argue is that you play a game of semantics; in effect, asking me to define the definition of "is." That's a worthless endeavor IMO.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

The only portion of the Newcomb's paradox that I think any conclusions can be drawn from is the glass box version. Since the predictor is a participant in the game, his actions affect the actions of the other player, which means that the predictor's knowledge of the future can only be conditional, such that he knows what the other player will do depending on what he himself does. So here is where I see the real conflict between human free will and the omnisicence and omnipotence of God. Since God is a participant in the lives of his creatures, knowledge of what human beings will do as a result of his own actions, necessarily means that he has absolute control over their actions.[/qs]I certainly believe that God is able to manifest mindless automotons that do His bidding if He so desired. But what is the one gift that God could give to Himself? Giving His creatures the option of love or rejection. Afterall, love is a meaningless term when you remove the option from it. An interesting concept. I would say yes and no. The descriptions of Hell vary from lakes of fire to utter darkness, but even more profound, the soul condemned to hell will never know God. Its been described as if God simply forgets about them. He gives them what they always wanted, which is to not have God in their midst. Perhaps God can negate His own omniscience through His own omnipotence. As far as can He give us privacy, probably not. It shouldn't surprise us that we can do things that God cannot. God couldn't sin because it would negate His very essence, His very Being. This is why omniscience and omnipotence have limited values. To me, being omnipotent means that He has the ability to control everything in the known universe. However, He cannot go against His own nature. So, if that incorporates 'omnipotence,' then I don't believe He is. (Not that it matters. He's exceedingly more powerful than all of us, either way). Since you word that, this makes sense, even Biblically. It is said that God 'forgets' our sins. Perhaps it isn't a metaphor for showing us that He can truly forgive us fully. Perhaps it also means that He literally has the power to forget all about it. In fact, the coined term, 'forgive and forget' comes from the passage I speak of. Could God allow us privacy? Who knows. The notion that God needs to 'carry' anything is delving into anthropomorphism, which I do not ascribe to. However, if one is inclined to believe that Jesus was fully God and fuly man, then this tells us that God can limit Himself in whatever He sees fit.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I can't prove God to anyone. However, you are confusing Intelligent Design with creationism. We don't need to identify what the Desginer is through science. That aspect is scientifically impossible. However, if you found a toaster in the woods would you need to know who built it in order to understand that someone with a mind must have designed it? Obviously not. The same principle can be applied when considering the Designer(s) of the universe. Its not the job of ID or any branch of science to make theological suppositions. Let theologians battle that aspect. I, like, Einstein, do not believe that God plays dice. I don't believe that nothing can create everything, and I don't believe that chance after chance after chance has the ability to 'get it right' often enough without the universe annihilating itself. I don't believe that we are here by accident. I believe we are here by design. When did I say that I know nothing of Intelligent Design? What I said was I can't 'know' that God exists, (not in the same way that I could know whether or not I ate an apple today). That's all I said. It almost sounds like you're demonizing faith? The difference between the two isn't disparaging. Why do you ask?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I've considered it. But perhaps I'm a little hazy on what you mean by 'privacy.' Yes, I know what privacy means, but in what context might God give someone privacy? Killing and murder are separate issues. I don't believe that God can murder any one. I know He can kill a bunch of people and has. No, I don't, and the reason why is because nothing truly belongs to us in the first place. Everything is His ultimately. Every faculty of my body and every contrivance is because of Him. Everything in the universe is His. If He taketh away it is because we are going through the refiner's fire. All of the people destroyed were guilty, and per the Law, were required to die. Secondly, animals are not under a moral law. Its no more a sin for us to kill 10 bears than it is for the bear's Maker to kill 10 million. I don;t get to call the shots. And even my ability to grasp every thought comes ultimately from Him. So who am I to question His actions? 9 out of 10 times, if I disagreed with God's actions, its proabably because I don't have the full picture in view. Good point. Because He is the one thing that will either save us or condemn us. We are powerless in comparison. As Paul said, "Fear not those who can kill the body, but rather fear that which can destroy both body and soul." Besides, fear just might mean reverence.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

ID is being unbiased by not attempting to ascertain who or what the Designer(s) is/are. ID only gives positive reasons why it is more likely that life is intelligently designed, as opposed to a successive, random, and capricious disorder giving rise to extant and extinct species. I really don't know why many people think that arguments in support of ID only entail negative aspects about evolution. That is patently false.There is a list of a hundreds of arguments in support of it.http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page I agree that teaching theology has no place within the science classroom, nor does science have any room in a theology classroom. In other words, I would be inclined to agree that "creationism" is a personal belief, whether it be right or wrong, and should not be implented into the science curricula. However, because ID simply seeks to recognize that a cognizance beyond our own explains through scientific inquiry the bases for our existence, this should be introduced into the curricula. I also believe that evolution should remain in the curricula. I believe both should be taught until one or both are falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. Let the students decide. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Because there is far too much order to come by way of chance after chance after chance. The odds that we've managed to stave off total annihilation in 4.5 billion years of time without the intervention of some higher cognizance is inconcievable. Things don't just magically happen, least of all, life coming from non-life. I believe that Occam's Razor in defense of ID so far beyond the normative theory of macroevolution to the point of it being insuperable.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

If that were the case, then how is prophecy possible. I'm not saying that God couldn't give us privacy, but how could He in one instance, grant us all privacy to our future events, but in the next instance, know what we are going to do before it happens for us along a real timeline? Because God makes a distinction. Acrroding to Scripture, David killed Goliath, but he murdered Bathsheeba's husband. I guess its like how a police officer can kill a man, but he can't murder a man. I think very strongly there is a distinguishing term. It may be a bit ambiguous to us, but I think we could all concieve of it. No, I think that's just an example of God ommiting certain information. Case in point, lets stay in Genesis, where God asked Cain, "Where is your brother?" Did God not know what Cain had done to Abel? Of course He did, that's why He said right after, "The blood of your brother cries out from the ground." I mean, God could not possibly divulge every aspect of Himself to us. That isn't God lying. As far as God saying that He was going to destroy all life on earth, apparently He did, save 8 people, 7 of every clean animal, and 2 pairs of every unclean animal. I don't see that as Him changing His mind. I see where you could make the argument, but we are supposed to look at Scripture in plenary in order to ascertain the more pressing matters. Could God change His mind? I suppose its possible, as in Abraham trying to barter with God to spare the Sodomites if there were 10 righteous people within the gates. I don't know the answer to that.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal