Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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

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

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

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


Message 212 of 304 (391165)
03-23-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
03-23-2007 4:11 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
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.
Maybe my Intelligent Designer doesn't exist, but on the other hand there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does.
Can you name me anyone over the age of 5 who believes the tooth fairy exists?
From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility.
Ringo writes:
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.
Radio is physical. It can be scientifically tested and verified. I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical, therefore by your criteria an IDer can never be un-woo-wooed.
Ringo writes:
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?
To be honest I do but that isn't the subject of this thread and in addition I do have a life outside of EvC and I've already dialoguing with 4 of you guys just on ID.
I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 4:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 6:56 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 215 of 304 (391183)
03-23-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
03-23-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Why wouldn't the origins of our existence, being something that happened here in the physical universe, be a matter for scientific inquiry?
I agree. If science can find the solutions to these questions all the more power to the scientists who can do it. It hasn't happened yet and until and if they do the question remains open. We can go for "God of the Gaps', or Science of the Gaps". We can all take our pick as to which is most reasonable.
crashfrog writes:
Did Plato ever test his conjectures against reality? No. That was, in fact, the specific reasoning that he rejected.
It still doesn't mean he is wrong, only that it can't be verified scientifically. I recently read "The God Particle", (Higg's boson, nothing theological about it), by Leon Lederman. He talks a lot about the ancient philosopher Democritus who forecast the basis of QM hundreds of years ago.
crashfrog writes:
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.
There are lots of grey areas in the world. I agree that science and math is attractive for the reasons you give. I like the certainty that 2+2=4. You can count on it so to speak. Unfortunately life isn't always like that.
crashfrog writes:
Won't your actions prove it?
Not necessarily. Maybe I'm really nice to her because she's loaded. There is no scientific test for or measurement of love. It's another one of those grey areas like philosophy.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 5:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 223 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 9:33 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 216 of 304 (391204)
03-23-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ringo
03-23-2007 6:56 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity?
I don't offer it as any kind of conclusive evidence. All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't.
Ringo writes:
How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world?
On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world.
Ringo writes:
We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"?
There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena.
Ringo writes:
If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable.
Maybe it is detectable but I'm inclined to think not. As I've said I'm just trying to sort out what I believe is truth like everybody else. Like they say; "It Ain't Science".
Ringo writes:
And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy.
Sounds like a rock-solid argument to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 6:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 8:20 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 218 of 304 (391212)
03-23-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ringo
03-23-2007 8:20 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility.
OK If you say so.
Ringo writes:
You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection.
It was an assumption to make a point. Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the real
world.
Ringo writes:
The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps.
Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 8:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 225 of 304 (391222)
03-23-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by nator
03-23-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:
My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical.
nator writes:
If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are.
The thing is I have supported my position but then nothing of what I have provided is verifiable scientifically so you don't accept it as evidence.
Let me know though when you find scientific proof of love or hate, beauty or ugilness, joy or sorrow, pride or shame etc.
Edited by GDR, : sp

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 10:08 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 226 of 304 (391223)
03-23-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
03-23-2007 9:33 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
I thought you said it wasn't a scientific question?
I don't think it is but if you are right it may well be.
crashfrog writes:
It's a common platitude to assert that something or another is "beyond the reach of science." Thankfully scientists don't usually listen.
I agree. I'm out of time. Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 9:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 228 of 304 (391253)
03-24-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by nator
03-23-2007 10:08 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
I posted on this thread in order to suggest in a reply to ICDESIGN that evolution was not incompatible with ID or Christianity for that matter. For whatever reason you decided to interject.
I have not pretended anywhere in here that I am the least bit knowledgeable about biology. I have no problem with evolution. I agree that ID is not science. I said that I doubt that science will find out how the first cell was formed but allowed that it might. The same holds true for why we have consciousness and experience love etc. Even if science determines how these things happen I suggest that it can't tell us why. Of course you don't agree because you don't believe that why enters into it, or if it does then it is unknowable to us.
nator writes:
There are, indeed, scientific explanations for why we have those emotions and appreciate aesthetics.
Clearly, you are ignorant of them.
Sure I'm ignorant of them, but are you telling me that you have empirical proof of why we have emotions?
As I pointed out I agree with Darwin's Position.
Darwin writes:
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with it's several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms; or into one -----
I pointed out that my position is consistent with Francis Collins the head of the Human Genome Project. I have to doubt that you would think that your knowledge of biology, or any other form of science exceeds his. I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything except that it is possible to be well educated in biology, not be a complete imbecile, and come to the conclusion that there is a designer that created us.
nator writes:
Just because you don't know if science has explanations for something, don't assume that it doesn't, particularly since you are a self-avowed science neophyte. You might avoid looking quite as foolish as you have in this thread.
At some point most of us learn to have a civil discussion without the use of patronizing put-downs, and I expect that some day you will as well.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 10:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by nator, posted 03-24-2007 7:53 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 256 of 304 (391535)
03-25-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by sidelined
03-25-2007 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
sidelined writes:
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.
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. I wouldn't agree that computers and humans are both bound by the same physical rules. I see humans as having both physical and metaphysical aspects. It seems to me that the conflict only exists if you are assuming that the IDer is limited by the same physical restrictions that we are.
I see the computer as being 100% physical, humans as combination of physical and metaphysical and the IDer as being 100% metaphysical. I see time as being only a physical limitation and not a metaphysical limitation, which in my view eliminates the conflict.
I want to emphasize again that this position is not scientific and I am opposed to the ID movement when it suggests that it is.
sidelined writes:
However, in a scenario where the world comes about as a natural consequence of the as yet unresolved physics {or lack thereof},
I have no idea how much science can even eventually resolve. Is there a point where the physical ends and the metaphysical begins?
sidelined writes:
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.
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. (I am making an assumption here again that you believe there is nothing beyond the physical, so I apologise if that is an incorrect assumption.) You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function.
I see nothing but traces of an IDer in this world. The thing is once again it goes back to our starting point. Is the physical all there is or not?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by sidelined, posted 03-25-2007 5:01 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Woodsy, posted 03-26-2007 7:30 AM GDR has replied
 Message 270 by sidelined, posted 03-26-2007 6:45 PM GDR has replied
 Message 272 by nator, posted 03-26-2007 10:45 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 258 of 304 (391578)
03-26-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Woodsy
03-26-2007 7:30 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Woodsy writes:
If the non-physical is to be accepted, surely there must be some kind of solid evidence for it.
Wouldn't that be something of an oxy-moron?
Woodsy writes:
Otherwise, why should one not regard ideas about non-physical things as intellectual aberrations arising from tolerably obvious historical processes?
It does provide an answer to questions that science hasn't as yet answered. Why is there eomething instead of nothing? What is consciousness? What is emotion? However, I'm repeating myself.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Woodsy, posted 03-26-2007 7:30 AM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by fallacycop, posted 03-26-2007 9:52 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 260 of 304 (391583)
03-26-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by fallacycop
03-26-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
fallacycop writes:
An instance of phylosophy of the gaps. Not a very impressive starting point in my opinion. What wlil happen if science answers some previously unanswered question? will your phylosophy become irrelevant? what will you do if it happens during your life-time?
Science has done an unbelievable job of sorting out the material world. As Lisa Randall of MIT and Harvard writes,"we understand far more about the world than we did just a few short years ago - and yet we are more uncertain about the true nature of the universe thanever before".
Even if science can demostrate how the first cell was formed, or what happened at T=0, can it tell us why those things happened at all?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by fallacycop, posted 03-26-2007 9:52 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by fallacycop, posted 03-26-2007 10:14 AM GDR has replied
 Message 262 by nator, posted 03-26-2007 11:09 AM GDR 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