Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 196 of 304 (391013)
03-23-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by crashfrog
03-22-2007 8:07 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
But from the conclusion "we don't know this all there is", to jump to "...and I know that what's beyond this is something called 'God', who has these characteristics" is to make a very considerable leap of faith indeed. Certainly not a logical one.
This is off topic in that we are only talking about ID.
crashfrog writes:
We're ignorant about what exists beyond the material universe. To argue from that position of ignorance, to use ignorance as a foundation to make assertions, shouldn't be something you expect us to take seriously.
We are only ignorant about what exists beyond the universe from a scientific point of view. Philosophically people much more clever than either of us have been able to discern quite a bit. Can it be tested in a lab or by a mathematical formula? No. There are a great many highly intelligent, well educated people that believe there is more to be known about our existence than what can be demonstrated scientifically.
crashfrog writes:
The question you pose is unanswerable. The reasonable response to an unanswerable question is not to use it as an excuse to jump to the conclusion you like the best.
I'm not sure why you feel your argument is so weak that you feel it necessary to demean my beliefs by categorizing them as just "jumping to the conclusion that I like the best".
crashfrog writes:
No, I can't; but it's your responsibility to prove your assertions, not mine to disprove them. And what I do know is that the thought process you appear to have used to generate your conclusions is not one that, historically, leads people to the truth.
This is a repeat of previous discussions in this thread. I have acknowledged there is no scientific proof for ID. It is philosophy or theology.
crashfrog writes:
In your opinion, does jumping to the conclusion you like the best tend to lead people to truth?
As Reagen said: There you go again.
GDR writes:
Mind you I still don't accept that Occam's Razor applies to this argument anyway.
crashfrog writes:
Oh, my apologies. I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of scientific theory.
Give me a break. Offering an opinion is hardly reason to accuse me of believing that I have the final word on this.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2007 8:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 7:50 AM GDR has replied
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 12:59 PM GDR has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 304 (391033)
03-23-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
03-23-2007 1:21 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
Philosophically people much more clever than either of us have been able to discern quite a bit. Can it be tested in a lab or by a mathematical formula? No.
Not only can we not test their claims in a lab or by using math, we can't test their claims at all.
Given this, it is not possible to say that they have "discerned" anything at all about what, or if, anything exists beyond the material universe.
They have made conjectures, pondered musings, posed what-ifs, but if we can't test any of them against reality, then all they are doing is making up stories in the absence of evidence and with no way to verify those stories.
The existence of an IDer is one of those stories.
quote:
There are a great many highly intelligent, well educated people that believe there is more to be known about our existence than what can be demonstrated scientifically.
Another fallacy, called the Appeal to Popularity.
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.
Edited by nator, : fixed spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 1:21 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 2:47 PM nator has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 198 of 304 (391035)
03-23-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
03-22-2007 1:34 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought you were arguing for ID.
It is a result of your post #141 here
GDR writes:
I understand the logic of your argument so let's use the same argument from another perspective. A computer is a complex design. Therefore the computer requires an intelligent designer namely us. Using your argument then means that we require an intelligent designer.
My argeuement is the application of the Intelligent design hypothesis which is not something I support. I merely showed the absurdity of the hypothesis by showing that it leads to unreasonable consequences that you refuse to acknowledge. And so what if we were to assume you correct that the the new perspective shows that we require an intelligent designer? That intelligent designer would still require an intelligent designer and so and ... And we arrive back at the same contradiction.
Both of us know that, even if I'm correct in my beliefs, that there is no physical answer to this question. We are limited by our 4 dimensions and 5 senses. We have no way of knowing what else there is. There are presumably a lot of things that we don't know because of our physical limitations.
This is completely off the point.It is not a question of your beliefs nor of limitations on our knowledge sir. The Intelligent Design Hypothesis stipulates that complexity can only be explained by there being an intelligent designer.
The consequence of the ID hypothesis is that the intelligent designer, being also complex, is thereby subject to the requirements of that hypothesis,namely what intelligent designer created that intelligent designer and so on over and over and over.
Time is a function of this universe. We talk about this being spatially a infinite universe. Who is to say that God doesn't exist in a universe where time is infinite and presumably the words before and after would be meaningless, thus no need for another level of ID.
Time has nothing to do with the validity of the hypothesis. If the complexity of the Intelligent Designer is not subject to the Hypothesis then that hypothesis is worthless since you also claim complexity may occur without there being a further application of the hypothesis. This is called special pleading, the implementation of exception to the hypothesis to avoid the difficulty or impossibility posed by asking the question of it. Since the consequences destroy the hypothesis as a working model you refuse to allow it by ignoring it and weaken your arguement immensely in the process.
Incidentally, by your logic we can't exist either. We required parents who required parents and so on to infinity, but just the same, here you are.
I am not arguing that parents are required ad infinitum since the chemical basis for biological life allows for inert matter to form greater complexity up to and including life through natural means and as such the problem need not be insurmountable.

``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between
reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''
- Richard Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 03-22-2007 1:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:10 PM sidelined has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 199 of 304 (391079)
03-23-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
03-23-2007 1:21 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
This is off topic in that we are only talking about ID.
Which is, I thought, the scientific (pseudoscientific, in fact) claim that life on Earth is best explained by intervention by an intelligent designer responsible for the physical structures of life. If we're talking about ID then we've left the realm of logic and philosophy, and we're talking about a position whose proponents say is something that can be tested scientifically.
Philosophically people much more clever than either of us have been able to discern quite a bit.
How? By making things up? I don't put a lot of stock in philosophy as a means by which existential truths are discovered. It's just words.
There are a great many highly intelligent, well educated people that believe there is more to be known about our existence than what can be demonstrated scientifically.
But we have no idea if they're right or wrong, though, and therefore no reason to take their word on it. And just as many equally intelligent and educated people believe that this universe is all that is; or at least, all that's relevant to our lives.
I'm not sure why you feel your argument is so weak that you feel it necessary to demean my beliefs by categorizing them as just "jumping to the conclusion that I like the best".
It's your argument that is weak, because jumping to the conclusion you prefer is exactly what you're doing. You've admitted that there's no way to decide or know for sure - yet, you've decided anyway.
What is that if not leaping to conclusions? And I'm supposed to accept that you've leapt to the conclusion that a cosmic, intelligent force is deeply interested in you - you who He knows by name, even - and that's all coincidence? That it has nothing at all to do with the fact that that's also the conclusion that you would prefer to be true?
Just how credulous do you think I am, exactly?
I have acknowledged there is no scientific proof for ID. It is philosophy or theology.
ID is held by its proponents to be a scientific theory. I'm not sure under what authority you claim to be able to make their claims irrelevant.
But you have to realize that philosophy and theology are two fields where there is absolutely no rigor. There is no way to prove that an argument in philosophy is wrong, or that a position of theology is untrue. Wrong arguments in science are eventually uncovered and disposed of. In philosophy and theology, wrong arguments are enshrined.
So saying that you're making an argument from philosophy and theology, to me, is akin to saying that you're making an argument from the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook (3.5 edition.) It may be all very interesting, and I might even take part, but you've just told me that your argument is about fictional concepts doing fictional things ("if a red dragon fought a mind flayer sorcerer, who would win?",) not about anything that's going on in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 1:21 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:27 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 219 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 200 of 304 (391098)
03-23-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by nator
03-23-2007 7:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:
Given this, it is not possible to say that they have "discerned" anything at all about what, or if, anything exists beyond the material universe.
They have made conjectures, pondered musings, posed what-ifs, but if we can't test any of them against reality, then all they are doing is making up stories in the absence of evidence and with no way to verify those stories.
The existence of an IDer is one of those stories.
Obviously if you believe the physical is all there is then you will dismiss the views of all of the philosophers as their views are based on something other that what is scientific.
I believe that there is something other than what we can learn through the scientific method. I believe that life is more than just what is contained in the physical world. This puts us at something of an impasse.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 7:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 3:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 220 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:16 PM GDR has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 201 of 304 (391100)
03-23-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by GDR
03-23-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR writes:
I believe that life is more than just what is contained in the physical world.
You can't reasonably come to that belief without a thorough understanding of what is contained in the physical world. As long as man's knowledge of the physical world is expanding rapidly, your belief is inherently unreasonable.
Obviously if you believe the physical is all there is then you will dismiss the views of all of the philosophers as their views are based on something other that what is scientific.
There's no rule that says philosophy can't be grounded in the physical world.
Philosophy that deals with how to approach the physical world is useful. Woo-woo "coulda-be" philosophy is not very useful and can be dismissed without negative consequenses.

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 200 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 2:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:40 PM ringo has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 202 of 304 (391101)
03-23-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by sidelined
03-23-2007 8:00 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:
My argeuement is the application of the Intelligent design hypothesis which is not something I support. I merely showed the absurdity of the hypothesis by showing that it leads to unreasonable consequences that you refuse to acknowledge. And so what if we were to assume you correct that the the new perspective shows that we require an intelligent designer? That intelligent designer would still require an intelligent designer and so and ... And we arrive back at the same contradiction.
I acknowledge the logic of what you are saying. I'm trying to make the point that the logic you are using can be applied in another way. You are using us as the starting point. If we are complex and require a IDer then that IDer is complex and requires a IDer and so on. I'm just starting one level lower than us. Computers are complex and thus require a IDer. That IDer is us and so we are complex and require an IDer and so on. Using your logic the computers can exist but we can't.
sidelined writes:
Time has nothing to do with the validity of the hypothesis. If the complexity of the Intelligent Designer is not subject to the Hypothesis then that hypothesis is worthless since you also claim complexity may occur without there being a further application of the hypothesis. This is called special pleading, the implementation of exception to the hypothesis to avoid the difficulty or impossibility posed by asking the question of it. Since the consequences destroy the hypothesis as a working model you refuse to allow it by ignoring it and weaken your arguement immensely in the process.
However, the scientific community is quite happy to come up with theories that involve other time dimensions. We have scientists that say that time is an illusion. Why is it ok to use our dimension of time as something unique to our universe scientifically and yet not acknowledge that the same ideas might apply to a discussion of ID?
sidelined writes:
I am not arguing that parents are required ad infinitum since the chemical basis for biological life allows for inert matter to form greater complexity up to and including life through natural means and as such the problem need not be insurmountable.
So you are saying that we are created from dirt then.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by sidelined, posted 03-23-2007 8:00 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2007 5:01 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 203 of 304 (391104)
03-23-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
03-23-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Which is, I thought, the scientific (pseudoscientific, in fact) claim that life on Earth is best explained by intervention by an intelligent designer responsible for the physical structures of life.
I don't agree that the claim of the existance of an IDer is scientific. In my view it is the most reasonable conclusion to why we exist.
crashfrog writes:
How? By making things up? I don't put a lot of stock in philosophy as a means by which existential truths are discovered. It's just words.
Plato just rolled over in his grave.
crashfrog writes:
But we have no idea if they're right or wrong, though, and therefore no reason to take their word on it. And just as many equally intelligent and educated people believe that this universe is all that is; or at least, all that's relevant to our lives.
I agree. You come down on one side of the fence and I'm on the other.
crashfrog writes:
What is that if not leaping to conclusions? And I'm supposed to accept that you've leapt to the conclusion that a cosmic, intelligent force is deeply interested in you - you who He knows by name, even - and that's all coincidence? That it has nothing at all to do with the fact that that's also the conclusion that you would prefer to be true?
This isn't about my Christian faith. It is a discussion about ID, or Theism.
crashfrog writes:
ID is held by its proponents to be a scientific theory. I'm not sure under what authority you claim to be able to make their claims irrelevant.
There are people in the ID "movement" that have a political agenda, by trying to make ID scientific. Who knows, some day it might be but it certainly isn't now. I use the term Intelligent Design just as it is written. It is my belief that there is an intelligence responsible for all that makes up our universe. Sure I believe more than that but that isn't what this discussion is about.
crashfrog writes:
But you have to realize that philosophy and theology are two fields where there is absolutely no rigor. There is no way to prove that an argument in philosophy is wrong, or that a position of theology is untrue. Wrong arguments in science are eventually uncovered and disposed of. In philosophy and theology, wrong arguments are enshrined.
I was with you up to the last sentence. Who are you to say that their arguments are wrong? Sure it can't be tested empirically but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I love my wife. Can I prove it. No. Is it true. Yes.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 5:11 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 204 of 304 (391109)
03-23-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
03-23-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
You can't reasonably come to that belief without a thorough understanding of what is contained in the physical world. As long as man's knowledge of the physical world is expanding rapidly, your belief is inherently unreasonable.
At what point will we have thorough knowledge of the physical world? It seems to me that we know quite a bit. I agree that it's expanding rapidly, but that doesn't really impact whether there is existence outside of the physical universe that we know.
Who is it that decides what's woo-woo and what isn't. (I agree that there certainly is a lot of the woo-woo kind around though.) It seems to me though that if we as individuals decide that there is no IDer then we can just carry on carrying on. If however we come to the conclusion, (unscientifically of course), that an IDer does or even might exist, it would be reasonable to consider whether or not we can learn anything about our intelligent benefactor.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 3:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 4:11 PM GDR has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 205 of 304 (391121)
03-23-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by GDR
03-23-2007 3:40 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR writes:
At what point will we have thorough knowledge of the physical world?
"Thorough knowledge" is the knowledge we have. It gets more thorough all the time.
We can't know how much we don't know, so we can only go with what we do know.
(Take that, Donald Rumsfeld.)
I agree that it's expanding rapidly, but that doesn't really impact whether there is existence outside of the physical universe that we know.
That's just the point: Nothing impacts on what's beyond our horizon. If there is "existence outside of the physical universe", it could be anything, any speculation, any hallucination. We have nothing to go on. Your "God" is no more valid than my Tooth Fairy. Your "Intelligent Designer" is no more valid than my Tinker-Toy Kid.
Who is it that decides what's woo-woo and what isn't.
What's woo-woo is what hasn't been discovered (yet). Radio was woo-woo a hundred-odd years ago. Steam power was woo-woo in the Middle Ages.
Intelligent Design will be woo-woo until you find something to unwoo-woo it.
If however we come to the conclusion, (unscientifically of course), that an IDer does or even might exist, it would be reasonable to consider whether or not we can learn anything about our intelligent benefactor.
Sure. And we might learn something about unicorns or hobbits too. But the first step in learning about something is not conceding that it "might" exist. The first step is deciding where to look for it.
Any suggestions?

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 204 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 6:21 PM ringo has replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 206 of 304 (391132)
03-23-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by crashfrog
03-22-2007 6:13 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
"The evo-babbler is not interested in serious, honest debate, but instead their ultimate goal, sub-conscious or not, is to waste your time. They inundate you with a conveyor belt of red herrings, strawmen, and trivial arguing over words. "
...YOU PEOPLE IN CAPITAL LETTERS....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2007 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2007 4:54 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 5:16 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2007 10:05 AM ICdesign has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 304 (391135)
03-23-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICdesign
03-23-2007 4:46 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
Karl, is this you?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICdesign, posted 03-23-2007 4:46 PM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 5:25 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2007 10:55 AM Chiroptera has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 208 of 304 (391142)
03-23-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by GDR
03-23-2007 3:27 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
In my view it is the most reasonable conclusion to why we exist.
Why wouldn't the origins of our existence, being something that happened here in the physical universe, be a matter for scientific inquiry?
Plato just rolled over in his grave.
Plato can go fuck himself, for all I care. Did Plato ever test his conjectures against reality? No. That was, in fact, the specific reasoning that he rejected.
You come down on one side of the fence and I'm on the other.
If that's all there was to it, you wouldn't be here talking to me. Clearly you think that your views are supported by reasons that are objectively true, that represent reality - not just your own preference. I'm trying to get you to either tell me what those reasons are, or admit that you don't have such reasons.
Who are you to say that their arguments are wrong?
If some philosophers advance position A, and some philosophers advance position ~A, they can't both be right. A /= ~A is one of the basic assumptions of logic.
So clearly somebody's wrong. The problem with philosophy and theology is that they have no idea who it is. In science, we eventually find out.
I love my wife. Can I prove it. No.
Won't your actions prove it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:07 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 234 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 209 of 304 (391145)
03-23-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICdesign
03-23-2007 4:46 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
...YOU PEOPLE IN CAPITAL LETTERS....
Nobody's twisting your arm to make you post here, or to read the things that are written.
You wanted to debate me, don't you remember? I didn't email you out of the blue. You insisted that your views be responded to.
Who's wasting whose time, again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICdesign, posted 03-23-2007 4:46 PM ICdesign has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 210 of 304 (391149)
03-23-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Chiroptera
03-23-2007 4:54 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
Chiro writes:
Karl, is this you?
Karl? Thought the name was Rob. Oh well, my mistake.
Actually it is shame when things get this way. IMO this topic never approached the ridicule stage, or the mud-slinging, of some of the others.
I don't believe that IC was treated poorly, but I am surprised that people waft in here expecting to change the world. In all of history, even before modern science, ID was not the only conclusion of the public, and evolution is not the culprit. Regardless of whether or not it was ever noticed or theorized, it is unreasonable to expect that we all would C what he C's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2007 4:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2007 5:57 PM anastasia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024