Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 99 of 304 (390403)
03-20-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by GDR
03-20-2007 12:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
But you can't just pull this out in isolation. It is the whole package. You asked earlier why I believe that an IDer exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier.
Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
If the Ider exists what accounts for the level of complexity that the Ider exhibits by way of the design this Ider is capable of generating?
Since complexity is the reason you give for the belief in an Ider, how then do we explain the complexity of the Ider? Is there another Ider to account for this one and so on ad infinitum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 12:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:50 AM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 123 of 304 (390492)
03-20-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
03-20-2007 10:50 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
I agree that you pose an interesting question but there will never be an answer to it in this life time. If I am correct in my beliefs we should find out the answers in the next life. I know I'll be going to all the lectures
Nope. You do not get off that easily my friend. You are at present defending the notion of Intelligent Design which implicates intelligence as being necessary in order for complexity to occur. Since, it seems reasonable, we may also assume that the 'intelligence' you are submitting exists is also a complex entity.
If we are to be honest in our appraisal of this concept then we must allow it to be universally applicable. So I ask you once again to explain the intelligence that is behind the "intelligence" you would have us accept as correct because complexity such as this must have an intelligence behind it according to the arguement you defend sir.
Failing this I would suggest that the notion of intelligent design fails in application and is no more than a mockery of thinking and logic.

"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 10:50 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 7:40 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 131 of 304 (390506)
03-20-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by GDR
03-20-2007 7:40 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
Even if I am 100% correct in my belief of a IDer who exists outside of time as we know it, I, nor anybody else, will be able to prove it.
What does that have anything to do with the question? I am asking you to explain why the notion of Id being required for explaining complexity falls apart when we apply the statement to the intelligence itself? Since the purpose of Intelligent design is to offer an explanation for complexity then it must also be able to explain the complexity of the intelligence itself regardless of whether they live outside of time or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 7:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 9:19 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 140 of 304 (390533)
03-21-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by GDR
03-20-2007 9:19 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically
A computer does not ask questions relating to us who build them and until they do we cannot know if their postulations makes any sense either.
However,the concept of Intelligent Design is quite well established sir.
The roots of it have been traced to Thomas Aquinas who framed it thus
"Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"
Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement.
If the arguement cannot explain the complexity of the intelligent designer then it logically fails to withstand critical examination of its claim and is therefore an incorrect assumption.
The fact that you seek to hand wave away is this. If we adhere to the arguement Aquinas proposed, then the Intelligent designer must also have been intelligently designed and so on ad infinitum. Do you still therefore agree that the arguement is consistent with itself sir?

``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 137 by GDR, posted 03-20-2007 9:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 03-21-2007 1:43 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 142 by Woodsy, posted 03-21-2007 6:45 AM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 151 of 304 (390790)
03-21-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by GDR
03-21-2007 1:43 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
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.
You have neglected to realize that I am not defending the intelligent design idea but you are.This arguement about the computer is following along the lines of the intelligent design idea you say is supported by the evidence. Continuing the logic of the idea you are supporting we come to the point where we have to ask ourselves what intelligent designer designed the intelligent designer?
That we are able to design and build complex items in a physical universe does not mean that it follows that our own complexity also had to be designed. In fact the chemical elements in existence appear to have the properties that allow for life to unfold given the right conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by GDR, posted 03-21-2007 1:43 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 03-22-2007 1:34 AM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 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

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 255 of 304 (391529)
03-25-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by GDR
03-23-2007 3:10 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
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.
Not at all. Computers and humans are bound by the same physical rules and as such are different only in their level of structure. The ID postulate assigns only the stipulation that complexity indicates an intelligence and we can see that such a postulate leads to unresolvable conflict.
However, in a scenario where the world comes about as a natural consequence of the as yet unresolved physics {or lack thereof}, we need run up against no postulation that requires us to invoke entities that have no support and that leave no trace in precisely the same way that would be apparent if said entities did not exist to begin with.

``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 202 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 3:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-25-2007 5:56 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 270 of 304 (391674)
03-26-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by GDR
03-25-2007 5:56 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR
One problem is that we come from different starting points. I think that I can safely say that you believe that the physical is all there is, whereas I believe there is more than just the physical
Well I can appreciate what a disadvantage that must be, since it is not a requirement of interaction with the physical world that you
"Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer"
Whatever the intelligent designer is that ID'er ,by dint of being complex, must be amenable to the hypothesis else the hypothesis fails in its role as an explanation.
Is there a point where the physical ends and the metaphysical begins?
Well,as yet we have had no difficulty explaining things with the existence of the interaction of the four fundamental forces. There is no phenomena that we cannot apply the parameters of these forces to and find an explanation that works to explain things quite well. Since no metaphysical evidence is available that is unambiguous or even testable it is folly to assume the existence of such. Just because we say that it cannot be ruled out does not make it a viable source of understanding since we can make up any scenario no matter its level of silliness and still say that it cannot be ruled out.
The thing is, if you believe that nothing but the physical exists then you view things in a different light than one who believes that there is a spiritual side to life. I see a Dad lovingly holding his child and I would feel a sense of peace that I would assign to the fact that our IDer is the root cause of that sense of peace.
Do you delude yourself into thinking that I am incapable of feeling that same sense of peace and that you, by believing it to be something originating in an ID'er to which you can offer no evidence, have some greater appreciation of the event?
I have been a father to 2 families and have witnessed their births and watched with huge delight at their growing and learning and experiencing no less than you yourself may have in the course of your life. Please explain how this makes for a cogent arguement in favor of an Id'ers existence.
You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function
I do not understand how this supports the debate we are having here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-25-2007 5:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-26-2007 11:44 PM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 301 of 304 (391899)
03-27-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by GDR
03-27-2007 10:00 PM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
GDR
The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
This does not mean that it cannot have occurred naturally since there are models that show how our universe can arise naturally from nothingness. As you can read here at this site
Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder
For a somewhat more in depth {read mathematical} discussion by the same author check this site. Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder
Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
In retrospect we can always look to find "massive improbabilities" since with each event that occurs far vaster numbers of events that could have occurred are eliminated.
Now, if in another scenario there were a universe in which no life forms were present at all, and we were to use our imagination to place ourselves in this new lifeless universe and check out the properties of the universe that unfolded then among all the possible probabilities is the outcome there any more improbable than our own?
Now we have to ask exactly what are the probabilities to which we can say something is improbable or not and just how do we arrive at these probabilities?
While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
But the precise mechanism of the origin is not something that we cannot speculate about and given that physics shows us the rules that govern chemistry which in turn govern biology we can follow the evidence to see if the rules of physics generalize out to include things like music and love as well as heartbeats and respiration.
Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
No supernatural intervention is known to be necessary to originate life either.
Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
Seems to be correct.
But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
That is great! However, the problem here is that there is no elaboration on the statement so we cannot evaluate why this defies evolutionary explanations. Nor is there evidence given to how Moral Law is incapable of being an evolved trait either.
Now accepting without critical examination is a poor way to judge the validity of an arguement since, after all, one would expect the premises to be capable of withstanding scrutiny. Does Collins address any of my points or does he simply make the statements and hope no one will question these?

``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 298 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:38 PM sidelined has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024