Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
733 online now:
PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 728 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Why would an intelligent designer design these?
Inactive Member

Message 57 of 108 (215673)
06-09-2005 3:13 PM

what is an "intelligent designer"? If we are talking about God then we really cant use a term like "intelligent" since it is relative to us. Our intelligence as we know it is ultimately dependant on our reality. That means that if the world where to have other properties (like other laws etc) or if our bodies had a different form we would not have the same thinking/mind/intelligence ( a better word would be consciousness).
So the question is hard to answer. But an plausible answer would be yes. If we had the "controls" for evolution and were smart enough we would probably have gone trough the same develpoment. The comparison to plane models is a nice one and describes how we humans work and how Evolutionary algorithms are used in AI research. Given certain problems and circumstances we tend to work in that way using Occams Razor as an principle. Also since the world seem to have "accidents" the work sometimes "hops" to a completely new state.
At the same time the answer to the question is no. God would probably not design a thing like that since he dont/cant have the same kind of consciousness adn intelligence as we do.

In any case i still hold it plausible that there is some kind of entity that has created the universe but in that case he is akin to be the god of Plato, "the unmovable mover" that started the universe and after that only can watch (never intervene). Kind of like AI science today where we can create advanced networks that we dont know how they work or by what rules. We can only watch the end result or terminate it (hopefully.. in Terminator mankind could not ;) )

By the same resoning there couldnt be a understandable after world since our "spirit" or "ghost" is incorporeal and thus could never have the same consciousness and thus the same intelligence.
Not saying that god or spirits could be more intelligent. Its just that they would be intelligent in the way we know it.
In light of this there could really exist other "beings" that where conscious in ways we cant understand and therefore doesnt know of. A rock could be more "intelligent" than we are for all means.

as a side remark i can say that "intelligence" is a bad word for describing the mental state that we mean by the use of the word. A bacteria culture can be said to have an intelligent behavior but i dont really think they have a mental state. Perhaps "intelligence" is an inherent "state" or "attribute" in the universe and we all(viruses, bacteria, animals, plants, man etc) are different expressions of that.
Or like one of the species in Babylon 5 explains it; "We are the Universe's way of figuring out itself" :)

As i see it atheism is a equally strange standpoint as devout beliving. Since neither can be sure that there arent/are a God existing. ;)

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2005 5:32 PM Kraniet has replied

Inactive Member

Message 59 of 108 (215716)
06-09-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
06-09-2005 5:32 PM

yes thank you I was wondering about that. But let me in that case say there are different definitions of ateism where one is something similar what youre talking of while the other is not believing in any God(s) at all. From the defintion i found you get "Weak" and "Strong" Ateism where the first says
X dont belive in God
and the other that
X dont belive in the existence of God

But that really dont make that much more sense. The second one we can rule out since its just stupid to say something like that. But the "weak ateism" is kinda strange also. How can you say that you dont belive in God (but in his existence if there is one) and not at the same time claim that he do exist? Couse arent what youre saying something like "God exists but i dont belive in him" and in that case that wouldnt be very rational would it?
No I would like to call my self an agnostic. But since this seems to be more extreme in the way that its saying that there is no way of knowing and therefore no point in wondering its a bit weird to use also. I mean there isnt any way we can know that we cant have knowledge of God(s).
Finally we have something called "agnosti-ateism" (translated from Swedish so I dont what the exact english term is) that is a combination of the weak atheism and agnostcism. Saying that i dont belive in God but if there were evidence of his existence so be it. It leaves room for thinking that there might be a god without condradicting ones beliefs wheter or not he exists. I simply dont have any proof that he does exist so i cant say if he does or do not exist.

but this is all a big side-step from the topic. :D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2005 5:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022