|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Watch this hypothetical argument and tell me what you think, Straggie.
Inside & Outside- Broadcast your self LIVE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: 1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion. Why is it is possible to "listen to the Spirit" in such a way that the ability to preach transcends "your own intellect and opinion" but not possible to "listen to the spirit" and similarly overcome the restrictions imposed by one's intellect and opinion when it comes to anything remotely useful or testable?
Phat writes: Watch this hypothetical argument and tell me what you think, Straggie. Well I think it's a deeply flawed position on the problem of evil that has little relevance to this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Taq writes: How does one study intelligent design apart from studying intelligence itself? My basic take on all of this is that intelligence is determined through a spiritual flow.
That is the challenge for this thread. Show us what the ID research program would actually need to do, what equipment would be needed to do this research, and how you would prioritize the money in this laboratory. Show us what a real ID research program would look like. Now mind you, this money is not to be spent testing evolution. It is meant to study ID, not evolution. Any experiments that test evolution will not meet the guidelines set out in the challenge.Taq writes: And I would maintain that such an intelligence exists and is past, present and future intelligence.
What we are actually interested in is if life on Earth was produced by an intelligence in the past. Ringo writes: And I would agree that our intelligence is insufficient...at least as far as creating anything much bigger than the Panama Canal or a super collidor.
But I think ID'ists are far from conceding that it could happen. Their desired outcome is that intelligence is necessary but our intelligence is insufficient. Straggler writes: I think you are either overestimating hypothetical humans ability to create or you are underestimating the power...never mind possibility...of a hypothetical Designer apart from humanity.
hypothetically a hypothetical human could obtain as much knowledge as a hypothetical creator. Straggler writes: I never said that you or anyone else could not have access to the concept of such knowledge. I only claim that you would not know how to use it. A Designer would. (hypothetically, of course. )
Well why don't we test this belief in divine wisdom? That could form the basis for a research project could it not? Let's take someone who believes that they are in communication with the divine (e.g. yourself apparently) and see whether they can demonstrate the validity of this belief by extracting some knowledge from the divine that it would otherwise not be possible for a mere human to have access to. Straggler, responding to my video writes: I disagree. The intellect without acknowledgement of a Designer is outside of communion. The intellect that acknowledges the possibility of a Designer is in communion. Problem?
Well I think it's a deeply flawed position on the problem of evil that has little relevance to this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion. In my experience, preaching is based on an appeal to wishes and emotions. Preaching is only effective if you ignore both reason an logic. It isn't about listening to a spirit. It is about ignoring reason and going with what makes you feel good. And that is really what we have with the ID movement. It isn't about finding a logical or reasoned argument. It is about defending a belief that you are already emotionally invested in from logic and reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
It is about defending a belief that you are already emotionally invested in from logic and reason. That assumes that logic and reason rule God out. In my experience they don't. I will admit, however, that the scientific method has served us well in explaining unexplainable things, whereas religious dogma has historically done poorly. Not that I dont believe spirituality CANT explain reality, mind you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
That assumes that logic and reason rule God out. In my experience they don't. If you use logic and reason how would you ever come to the conclusion that God does exist? Think of Russel's Teapot as a non-theological example of what I am talking about. Why do people believe that this universe was created for them by a loving deity that cares about their day to day struggles? Because it makes them feel better. That is what preaching is, playing to those emotions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'. A lot of the problem in this dicussion is the total lack of specificity. Let's get specific. A real life example. Are you familiar with SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence)? The SETI Institute has a number of missions one of which is to build and man radio telescope arrays that search for intellegent signals in space. They scan thousands of frequencies and analyse the data looking for these signals. It is a non-profit science organization and thus seeks science grants (and personal donations) from funding organzations, governmental, corporate and private. If I'm reading you correctly, you are proposing that SETI also approach churches and other religious organizations for their funding. In order to do that you are suggesting they give their reasons and motivations as "searching for God", yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: How does one study intelligent design apart from studying intelligence itself? But that is precisely what I am proposing be researched. You have claimed that preaching requires access to something beyond one's "own intellect and opinion". I am suggesting that if you can communicate with this intelligent being such that you are able to transcend your "own intellect and opinion" then rather than merely preaching why not apply this ability in such a way as to conclusively demonstrates that you can actually transcend your "own intellect and opinion". Why not use this ability of yours to reveal a testable truth that your intellect and opinion could not possibly have arrived at? This would give far more objective credence to claims of communicating with the "divine" than any amount of preaching wouldn't it?
Straggler writes: hypothetically a hypothetical human could obtain as much knowledge as a hypothetical creator. Phat writes: I think you are either overestimating hypothetical humans ability to create or you are underestimating the power...never mind possibility...of a hypothetical Designer apart from humanity. Why are hypothetical humans any more (or less) limited than hypothetical creators?
Phat writes: The intellect without acknowledgement of a Designer is outside of communion. The intellect that acknowledges the possibility of a Designer is in communion. Problem? Well as an initial problem that leaves someone who acknowledges the philosophical possibility of a creator but who sees no reason to think such a thing actually exists in some sort of communion limbo. But if you are genuinely in communion with some sort of superior being why not demonstrate this ability of yours in a testable way (e.g. that described above)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But I think IDists are far from conceding that it could happen. Their desired outcome is that intelligence is necessary but our intelligence is insufficient. Any research they did would be shooting themselves in the foot. And:
And I would agree that our intelligence is insufficient...at least as far as creating anything much bigger than the Panama Canal or a super collidor. Of course, we are rapidly approaching the day where human intelligence will be able to create synthetic life. See, e.g., Rasmussen et al., 2003.This is not a problem for ID (unless one has a religious agenda). If anything, it adds support to the plausibility of the notion that an intelligent civilization somewhere in the universe could have designed biological life. Naturally, the origin of life is a historical question, and not merely a question about plausibility. So we must not only establish the plausibility of the intelligent design of life, but also provide evidence for that view. But, hey, a whole bunch of the evidence that supports the RNA world hypothesis merely supports its plausibility. For example, observations which demonstrate that RNA can catalyze its own replication say nothing about whether self-replicating RNA was indeed the precursor to modern cellular life. ReferenceSteen Rasmussen, Liaohai Chen, Martin Nilsson, Shigeaki Abe, 2003. Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter. Artificial Life, 9(3): 269-316. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
it's easier to preach than debate. Ignoring the content of a person’s text or speech is not debate. It’s avoiding the debate and then calling it debate.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined:
|
When scientists had questions about the God particle they didn't build a spaceship. They built the LHC. Notice a difference? Yes. The difference is they were not seeking higher consciousness. They were seeking a base particle. You ignored everything I said, or failed to comprehend the importance of what I'm pointing out. I'll ask again: I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'. I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
So what you're saying is that we "aren't ready yet" to do any research into ID. You're affirming that ID is not science; in fact, it's only specualtion that ID might possibly some day become science. I think most people would agree with that assessment - and it explains why there are no research grants for ID. No. What I'm saying is there is no magical science of I.D. I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science. The legitimate science I have already proposed, that you wish to disregard because it is not 'magical enough' to fit your definition of what I.D. science is to you.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1613 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
A lot of the problem in this dicussion is the total lack of specificity. Let's get specific. A real life example. Are you familiar with SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intellegence)? The SETI Institute has a number of missions one of which is to build and man radio telescope arrays that search for intellegent signals in space. They scan thousands of frequencies and analyse the data looking for these signals. It is a non-profit science organization and thus seeks science grants (and personal donations) from funding organzations, governmental, corporate and private. If I'm reading you correctly, you are proposing that SETI also approach churches and other religious organizations for their funding. In order to do that you are suggesting they give their reasons and motivations as "searching for God", yes?
Finally getting close!!! The answer is both yes and no. No, because the religious will not directly fund S.E.T.I. Yes, because indirectly, through an I.D. hub, they would.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
What I'm saying is there is no magical science of I.D. I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science. No, ID is the proposal that life on earth was designed by some intelligence or intelligences. It has nothing to do with gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
tesla writes:
That sounds OK to me.
I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science. tesla writes:
You seem to be thinking of somebody else. What I've been asking you is how your proposed research would point to God. Would your "God detector" be able to distinguish between, say, a god and a technologically-advanced alien lifeform?
The legitimate science I have already proposed, that you wish to disregard because it is not 'magical enough' to fit your definition of what I.D. science is to you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024