Design and the intelligence hypothesis

jar This is my point though.In the same way it is meaningles to talk about time "before" time itself it is my impression that it is meaningless to speak of a "god" as an existence seperate from existence itself.To say that god had no origin is the same as saying god had no beginning.To have had no beginning implies to have never existed in the first place.What does it mean to say that a god is beyond time and space without,in the same breath,disabling the ability to meaningfully interact with time and space?I know of the faith aspect of your position jar I ask simply to clarify the puzzle.As an aside I recieved an answer from 1.61803 in the other thread which begat this topic.Here is the reply. Firstly to clear the historical point Heisenburg actually said It seems he accepts the absurdity of the infinite reression as no problem without either actually saying so or answering the difficulty inherent in the absurdity.This seems to be a dodge but I will endevour to bring him to this thread and see if we can get an answer.This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-07-26 12:32 PM

Hello Sidelined. "I'm your huckleberry."Dr. Heisenburg's quote was not to far off the mark going by memory. But correction was in order; although I did misquote him I did capture the spirit of what he was saying. But you are to be commended on your fantastic googlematic skills.. I am kind of tickled by Occam's razor proponants and ardent atheist personal mission to debauch and degrade any would be belief that the universe could be designed by an intelligent creator.Occam's razor asks why introduce a unecessary premise when a self existant universe is sufficent to explain the universe.
Ok,, the universe is self existant, you accept your apriori premise out right . The jury is still out on that one. A uncaused big bang is still not fact. Quantum fluctuations and virtual particals emerging from non space causing a uncaused big bang. Hmmm. Or Brane theory that suggest Membranes from other dimentional universes colliding resulting in our big bang. Hmmm. And this is not inviolation of the razor?Ok so introduce other spacial dimentions and you introduce a whole host of metaphysical / supernatural phenomenon into the mix. Goody for all those wacky theist because now they get to assume even more crazy ideas that could possibly be going on outside of our universes space time continium. And all those silly little dimentions suggested by String theory are just chalk full of possiblities of realities we have no way of knowing what exist there be it a deity or super intelligent aliens.So yes I do accept the absurdity of infinite regression.
But the onus is on you scientist to now explain how the old song: something from nothing leaves nothing....ya gotta have something if ya wanna be with me....It is logical IMO to assume causality for any existant matter. That is the simplist choice. So it is my contention that the Universe was possibly created by super intelligent aliens operatiing outside of our space time continum. Feel free to refute my premise.

That is certainly one interpretation but another is the concept of eternal existence, that GOD is that which always existed and will always exist. Long after this universe has run down, GOD will exist.We experience time, beginnings, endings because you and I exist within the constraints of this universe. That's all we can know, we're limited. GOD is that which does not have limits. Without and within. The Universe may well exist within GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Occam's razor asks why introduce a unecessary premise when a self existant universe is sufficent to explain the universe.
Ok,, the universe is self existant, you accept your apriori premise out right . The jury is still out on that one. A uncaused big bang is still not fact. Quantum fluctuations and virtual particals emerging from non space causing a uncaused big bang. Hmmm. Or Brane theory that suggest Membranes from other dimentional universes colliding resulting in our big bang. Hmmm. And this is not inviolation of the razor?

---

See this is why creationists and other like it (whatever you position maybe) get a bad name. You are conflating many issues and saying hey "if x is not possible then how about Y and Z and W - why are they possible!"Occam's Razor as applied to intelligent Design and it's conceptual framework says that within that framework - that it a designer does not need for the Designer - then the universe is the only step we need, any further adds a level of complexity that we don't need. This has nothing at all to do with the "truth" behind quantum theories or anything else. Those ideas stand or fall on their own.I'm getting confused - why are we in the intelligent design forum if we all want to discuss issues that have very little to do with intelligence design.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26-Jul-2005 07:14 PM

Even the infinite regression issue is bad for ID.If we start with 3 possibilities: The first and third obviously negate the ID concept, so we are left with (2) for ID to work.So now we ask 'Where did the IDude come from?' and there are 3 possibilities: B1 is no different than A1 above except it has a "handyman" thrown in: it requires a god with no equivocation possible.B3 is no different than A3 above except it has an "evolved manipulator" thrown in: it validates evolution with no equivocation.B2 leads back to 'Where did the IDude come from?' and we're (follow the yellow brick road ...) on to level Except for one little detail: the designer of the designer is a god. It has crossed the threshold because it has created, not just life, but life at least equal to it's own abilities.It does not need to be an all-powerful all-seeing all-knowing etcetera GOD!!! (where did that echo come from?)... it just needs to be of the level of any minor god of any pantheon ... pan or cupid come to mind ... to qualify as {a god}.Thus at the third level we are either at "{a god} did it" or "it just happened" and the middle has been consumed.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hello Charles, Ok. If the universe is 'the only step" you need to explain the universe, then I say bully for you!! Fine if you buy that on that merit alone. I envy your ability to accept such a statement based on that narrowly defined framework.I say that until the singularity is explained the jury is out on causality in my opinion.I say until the source of energy is understood and explained; the jury is out on causality.We know the universe exist.We know the big bang is responsible for the beginning of our space time continum and the laws that govern energy/matter.BUT........We still do not know if the universe is open or closed.
We still do not know what energy is.
We still do not know how reality is manifested by wavefunctions and probabilities.
We still do not know how to duplicate abiogenesis.
We still do not know how many dimentions there are.
We still do not know if life exist outside of our own planet.
We still do not know what the mind is.
And the list goes on and on.And you accept that based on Occams razor that the universe is sufficent to explain the universe and everything in it.That is fantastic. But you do not know that as a verified fact and until evidence emerges that confirms a 'uncaused ' universe I will keep a open mind.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

No...read what I'm saying. ALL I am discussing is the concept of intelligence design as laid out by the discovery institute (Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.).That's it! That's all I'm saying! I'm not saying anything about design as a concept at all! Do you understand what I'm saying?

Ok Charles I misunderstood.Mia Culpa.And now back the regularly scheduled postings. This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-27-2005 11:37 AM

jar We experience time because it is motion that requires time or more precisely space time.To initiate and complete an action requires spacetime[/i].To say that god is unlimited does not release him from the requirement of spacetime in order to accomplish an action.So god needs spacetime in order to accomplish yet if there is no spacetime there is no way such a god can do anything.We also cannot say that god has no limits since this itself also leads into infinite regression of a sorts.To have infinite energy means to have energy that cannot be restrained which would,if god were to harness it,thereby limit said energy but unharnessed would allow no god that harnessed such.The understanding that time had a beginning is not necessarily so though the means of its existence would be far subdued to what it is in our present universe.If,as is presently suspected,spacetime is quantum in nature,then there is no applicable meaning to the notion of a zero time allowed in the universe.

But everything you said applies to this universe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarSo what would it be with god? Is there a way in which action exists without time?

Must be. GOD is that which created the Universe. Since He is the creator, She must have existed before time. Or at the least, She exists in a superset of our spacetime frame.Now when GOD does interact within this Universe, spacetime does comeinto play, and that can be seen in the miracles, they happened in a timeframe that is appropriate for humans to see, sense and experience.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar OK,jar,what is the means by which your curiously gender confused god :} exists without time that allows for an action to be accomplished since any attempt by him to perform an act requires time in which to do it?
To have the universe be a subset requires some way of determining that this god forms a greater domain yet other than taking it on a faith wherein you fashion an imagined scenario to account for the qualities you require of god in order to explain the universe we need establish some means by which we can avoid suffering the same contradictory fate as ID does. Have you read up on Littlewoods Law of Miracles?check this website http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&ar...
It is not an unusual thing for such to happen.I am also curious about your use of the term time frame.Are you able to express what it means to have a time frame and how and why would god make a time frame different?
Now what is the physical effect that comes into play when god communicates in space time? In other words,what is there different that is not there when god is not communicationg? Why or why not can we demonstrate the change that I presume would occur as a result?

The reason that I often use multiple genders when refering to GOD is that I doubt that GOD, if He exists, is in the image of life as we know it. I have no proof for that but it does seem to me to be reasonable.Before going on, I would once again like to stress that the existence of GOD IS a matter of faith. I can no more prove what I say than I can prove that something existed before the BB. Well, we can't prove it, at least not yet, so it does become a matter of taking it on faith. It's back to the view from Flatland. It was perhaps a poor choice of words, but what I'm trying to convey is the following.We exist in one space/time universe. Although our view of it is relative to our position related to everything else, it is still one space/time unit. When GOD opperates within the Universe things are pretty much as we see them. I think it really does come down to the question of how a Flatlander would percieve us? GOD, if he exists can use all of the normal features of our universe. But GOD, if he exists, can also suspend or modify any of those rules. There may also be other rules, those involved in the superset, of which we are totally unaware.But it is a matter of faith. I have never tried to convince you otherwise. I believe that the definition of GOD is that which created the Universe. He might well be more. She might well have created other Universes as well.But we are limited to this one, at least so far. And as such, we can only sense and operate within the constraints of this universe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What's interesting about this is unbelieving scientists had no problem before the Big Bang to the idea that universe had no beginning, but now people with the same logic claim it is illogical to think of a God that has no beginning.That, to me, is very telling in terms of the intellectual honesty or lack thereof among the God-scoffers.This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 11:06 PM