Thread: Intelligent Design

a strobelite of thoughtfull design / flash flash flash / a strobleite of thoghtfull flashes / fate fate fate .

Too complex for those who believe in it to understand how those "random" (not exactly random, because good traits are passed down, i.e. the analogy of a plane being created by a powerful wind going through a junkyard does not fit) processes actually work

Originally Posted by ataraxis

Too complex for those who believe in it to understand how those "random" (not exactly random, because good traits are passed down, i.e. the analogy of a plane being created by a powerful wind going through a junkyard does not fit) processes actually work [/b]

Why do you think people who believe in intelligent design are stupid? Is it because they don't agree with you?

I understand it perfectly and am still planning to someday make a program that simulates it (if possible.)

And to answer the first post, I think it might be comparing the complexity of the universe to the sort of stuff we humans can create.

He never actually said that believers of I.D. are stupid, just that they may not understand the proccess of evolution. For that matter, neither do scientists. People have created theories about the things that they cannot explain since the dawn of time. Critics of I.D. often attack it due to the fact that it is just a theory, with anecdotal evidence.

I see intelligent design for the entire universe, not just evolution. I simply say its intelligent on the basis that it takes an intelligent mind to even comprehend it.

How can we compare something that humans create, to the universe?
Things that humans create are in the universe. We know nothing more complex, or less complex then the universe. (By universe I mean everything that exists.) To say that the universe is complex, is flawed. We have no perspective on this. I tried to come up with a simple analogy, but I couldn't. Sort of like describing colour to a person blind from birth, but not quite.
Therefore, if it is flawed to say that the universe is complex, then it is also flawed to say that the universe was created by intelligent design because it is complex.

Originally Posted by Merlin38

Critics of I.D. often attack it due to the fact that it is just a theory, with anecdotal evidence.[/b]

No, critics attack it because it doesn't even vaguely resemble a theory, has NO supporting evidence, is a logical fallacy within itself (ad ignorantiam) and is nothing more than creationism in disguise.

Originally Posted by Adanac

How can we compare something that humans create, to the universe?
Things that humans create are in the universe. We know nothing more complex, or less complex then the universe. (By universe I mean everything that exists.) To say that the universe is complex, is flawed. We have no perspective on this. I tried to come up with a simple analogy, but I couldn't. Sort of like describing colour to a person blind from birth, but not quite.
Therefore, if it is flawed to say that the universe is complex, then it is also flawed to say that the universe was created by intelligent design because it is complex.[/b]

I don't believe in ID, but in some kind of theistic evolution.

But, I don't think that it is quite right to say that we cannot say whether or not the universe is complex. With a little imagination, I think that we can cast a verdict on whether or not the universe is complex.

Consider this: an small, hard, spherical object (imagine a ball) bounces into another ball-like object, and they both bounce off in opposite directions. That is a simple interaction. Nothing complex about it.

Now, add in a third ball, all three hitting each other at once. Still pretty simple, but more complex. Now make that billions of balls. Try to imagine the interactions going on. You can't. Because the problem is already too complex to comprehend. Now, make these balls not really balls at all, but little bits of space with other little balls zooming around inside. Now imagine how many of these billions (or trillions) of balls (atoms and their sub-atomic components) are contained in a single speck of sand. Now imagine how many specks of sand are on a planet. Now imagine that with all those grains of sand, and for that matter, all the rock, water, atmosphere (all made up of trillions upon trillions of little atoms) of a small planet like earth--imagine that it still takes 1,300,000 to equal the size of earth's sun--which is average-sized, by the way. Now imagine that there are roughly 200-400 billion such suns in the Milky Way, not an uncommon size for a galaxy. Now consider that there are over 100 billion galaxies, that we can see, in this universe of ours.

Now, try to imagine, if you possibly can, the number of little ball-like objects (sub-atomic particles) contained in this unspeakably huge cosmos. Imagine them all bouncing into one another.

Now consider that this unimaginable number of objects is governed by just four forces, just four. Throw in another handful of finely-tuned cosmic numbers, and what comes out of this huge mess of objects? Chaos? Sort of. A chaotic, yet somehow highly structured, cosmic dance. An achingly organized universe, complete with galaxies, and star systems, and at least one planet that has, through all of this random chaos, given rise to not just plants and animals, but creatures with enough intelligence to look at the stars and say "Wow, what a sky!"

Now, considering all this, how can one be uncertain about the fact that we are living in an unthinkably complex universe?

[And frankly, I don't see how one does not right away see a God behind all of that matter and energy jostling around randomly and unthinkingly in a void, and yet somehow (miraculously, as far as I am concerned) giving rise to me and you, volitional and rational beings capable of comprehending themselves and their world (to some degree at least).]

Just some thoughts.

-LUX

Originally Posted by Adanac

How can we compare something that humans create, to the universe?
Things that humans create are in the universe. We know nothing more complex, or less complex then the universe. (By universe I mean everything that exists.) To say that the universe is complex, is flawed. We have no perspective on this. I tried to come up with a simple analogy, but I couldn't. Sort of like describing colour to a person blind from birth, but not quite.
Therefore, if it is flawed to say that the universe is complex, then it is also flawed to say that the universe was created by intelligent design because it is complex.[/b]

the idea that the universe is complex isnt only held by theists. there are plenty of atheist scientists who find the universe so complex they are marveled by it.

the universe is complex becuase we say it is. we give descriptions to things and we decide. who says the universe is big? compared to what? a house? why do we compare it to us, because that is what humans do.

the universe is big and complex.

I'm a little weary of talking about this outside of the Religion forum, so I will just ask two questions. Isn't God supposed to be much more complex than the universe? Then, how does intelligent design, by its own logic, deal with that scenario?

Originally Posted by LuxAeterna

Now consider that this unimaginable number of objects is governed by just four forces, just four. Throw in another handful of finely-tuned cosmic numbers, and what comes out of this huge mess of objects? Chaos? Sort of. A chaotic, yet somehow highly structured, cosmic dance. An achingly organized universe, complete with galaxies, and star systems, and at least one planet that has, through all of this random chaos, given rise to not just plants and animals, but creatures with enough intelligence to look at the stars and say "Wow, what a sky!"

Now, considering all this, how can one be uncertain about the fact that we are living in an unthinkably complex universe?[/b]

The point of Intelligent Design is not "compexity equals god" it is "a certain level of complexity equals god". In biology it attempts to say that 'Irreducible Complexity' equals god (actually a designer. Because 'ID theorists' certainly aren't creationists. No sir. Legitimate scienists all round ). Irreducible complexity occurs when a system ceases to function with the removal of a part. Of course, since the theory of evolution has many other pathways than a simple stepwise fucntion, this has been routinely debunked.

In the realm that you're applying it to what would be a sufficient level of complextiy to say it equals god? You've said that "energy jostling around randomly and unthinkingly in a void" forming us would be sufficiently complex. I'd agree. Of course we are not the product of random, undirected, movement of energy. As you said - matter interacts in a set way based on certain physical laws. The universe, and its complexity, is a product of matter interacting as determined by these natural laws. God has nothing to do with the complexity.

Now, you might say that these natural laws have to be set by god - but that is a different question. It still doesn't change the fact that the universe's compelxity is a product of these natural laws.

Originally Posted by Universal

I'm a little weary of talking about this outside of the Religion forum, so I will just ask two questions. Isn't God supposed to be much more complex than the universe? Then, how does intelligent design, by its own logic, deal with that scenario?[/b]

your right when you say that probably shouldnt be asked here

Originally Posted by juroara

your right when you say that probably shouldnt be asked here [/b]

Have you seen Neruo's signature picture? You should check it out.

Originally Posted by spoon

The point of Intelligent Design is not "compexity equals god" it is "a certain level of complexity equals god". In biology it attempts to say that 'Irreducible Complexity' equals god (actually a designer. Because 'ID theorists' certainly aren't creationists. No sir. Legitimate scienists all round ). Irreducible complexity occurs when a system ceases to function with the removal of a part. Of course, since the theory of evolution has many other pathways than a simple stepwise fucntion, this has been routinely debunked.[/b]

My main point was to address Adanac's assertion that we cannot say whether or not the universe is complex. I don't see how when someone looks at what exists he can say: "We don't know if that is complex or not!" It is plainly evident that the universe is complex. I think it is something we can say with some certainty.

I wouldn't say that "a certain level of complexity equals God." I would simply say that it seems to me that the best way to describe how we ended up with such a vast, complex, orderly, and comprehensible universe points to the existence of God. For me, there is no definite equation. For me there can't be. There will always be an alternate explanation for existence. Otherwise, faith would not be a choice, and free will would not exist.

In the realm that you're applying it to what would be a sufficient level of complextiy to say it equals god? You've said that "energy jostling around randomly and unthinkingly in a void" forming us would be sufficiently complex. I'd agree. Of course we are not the product of random, undirected, movement of energy. As you said - matter interacts in a set way based on certain physical laws. The universe, and its complexity, is a product of matter interacting as determined by these natural laws.[/b]

Well, of course, we cannot say with empirical certainty what the universe is a product of, since we cannot see past the beginning of our universe (indeed, we cannot even scientifically see to the first moment of existence--not yet anyway). But that is neither here nor there.

I think it holds to say we are the product of "energy jostling around randomly and unthinkingly in a void." Yes, those random and unthinking interactions are governed by by four forces, but those forces do not direct the matter and energy to form complex and orderly structures. Furthermore, according to a naturalistic explanation, those forces themselves are random and unthinking. They just happened to be that way.

But, atoms, stars, galaxies, planets, life, etc--that is all the product of random movement of particles coupled with a random yet convenient set of forces and finely-tuned numbers. What I find amazing is that if any of the forces were slightly stronger or slightly weaker, we wouldn't have atoms, or anything else. We would have a soup of matter and energy. What I find amazing is that--from a naturalistic point of view--we just happened to have all the right parameters pop into existence along with all this other stuff so that order could come out of chaos, and life sufficiently intelligent to comprehend its own amazing genesis could form.

God has nothing to do with the complexity.

Now, you might say that these natural laws have to be set by god - but that is a different question. It still doesn't change the fact that the universe's complexity is a product of these natural laws.[/b]

Again, I would say that it is entirely possible, though to me unreasonable, to say that the universe's complexity has nothing to do with a creator. We can observe the universe and come up with a completely natural explanation for it all. That's why I don't believe in ID--because ID attempts to say that we can prove God scientifically.

But I think that a natural explanation that leaves out a Creator, a Prime Mover, a First Cause, fails on a fundamental level to explain that wonder we feel when we look at the cosmos. To give us an answer to any fundamental question, such as "How?" and "Why?" and "For what purpose?" The naturalist can tell us how things formed after that initial moment (the evolution of the cosmos and life), why things did what they did after the Big Bang (the natural laws), and what purpose life has to propagate and struggle (survival). But all of these answers are not fulfilling because they don't get at the root of anything. They are all secondary.

The real question is: Why does something exist instead of nothing? And science, for all of its usefulness and all of its ability to explain what we see empirically, cannot answer that question.

Which is why, when I look at the stars, even though I know that it could have all happened by chance, I choose to believe that it didn't.

-LUX

PS: But again, my main point was that we can say that the universe is complex.

PPS: I apologize if this is off-topic and overly long, but I was compelled to respond thusly.

EDIT:

PPPS: I also apologize if this is getting too religious. But I don't see how one can talk about ID without bringing the concept of God into it.

Originally Posted by LuxAeterna

The real question is: Why does something exist instead of nothing? And science, for all of its usefulness and all of its ability to explain what we see empirically, cannot answer that question.[/b]

Neither can religion. It just creates an even more difficult question-- Where did God (far more complex than the universe) come from?

Originally Posted by Universal

Neither can religion. It just creates an even more difficult question-- Where did God (far more complex than the universe) come from?[/b]

First, I disagree that God is far more complex than the universe. I don't know where that notion got started, but I think that it is wrong.

But the beauty of the notion of an infinite and eternal God is that he does not have to come from somewhere. The universe has to come from somewhere because it is a thing of cause and effect. Each effect following from a cause in a chain of causation that is bound by both time and space.

Logically, this chain of cause and effect has to have a beginning. Why? Because you cannot have an infinite chain of causation. If you did, then you would never get anywhere. If there were an infinite number of steps to get to point B, then there would always be an infinite number of steps to make before reaching point B. Therefore, you would never reach it. Thus, our universe has to have an ultimate beginning. The chain of causation has to stop somewhere, or else existence would never be able to arrive at this point.

Therefore, it is logically the most sound answer to bring in God. God, being infinite and eternal, is the cause that is uncaused. He doesn't need a cause, because he is outside of the reality of effect follows cause. Thus the infinite chain of causation ceases, and we have our Unmoved Mover, our First Cause.

God explains his own existence, unlike the universe (both finite and temporal), which logically requires an explanation outside itself.

-LUX

Originally Posted by LuxAeterna

First, I disagree that God is far more complex than the universe. I don't know where that notion got started, but I think that it is wrong.

But the beauty of the notion of an infinite and eternal God is that he does not have to come from somewhere. The universe has to come from somewhere because it is a thing of cause and effect. Each effect following from a cause in a chain of causation that is bound by both time and space.

Logically, this chain of cause and effect has to have a beginning. Why? Because you cannot have an infinite chain of causation. If you did, then you would never get anywhere. If there were an infinite number of steps to get to point B, then there would always be an infinite number of steps to make before reaching point B. Therefore, you would never reach it. Thus, our universe has to have an ultimate beginning. The chain of causation has to stop somewhere, or else existence would never be able to arrive at this point.

Therefore, it is logically the most sound answer to bring in God. God, being infinite and eternal, is the cause that is uncaused. He doesn't need a cause, because he is outside of the reality of effect follows cause. Thus the infinite chain of causation ceases, and we have our Unmoved Mover, our First Cause.

God explains his own existence, unlike the universe (both finite and temporal), which logically requires an explanation outside itself.

-LUX[/b]

Why can't the universe have an explanation outside of itself that does not have consciousness? I believe in the argument about existence external to the universe, but I don't see why it has to be something with a mind and a personality.

Okay, so we've established that we are comparing ourselves, and the things we know, to judge how complex the universe is. Again, I think this is faulty. The universe is so unimaginably huge, that this is worse than comparing ourselves to a single-celled organism. Note I said unimaginably huge. By that, I mean huge compared to anything we know. At the same time, to use your ball analogy, the universe is just one ball. We can't pull out another ball and compare. So this "designer" ( ) would have to be able to understand said complex universe and all inhabitants, in order to construct it. He would have to base this on something. I encourage you to create a new colour. Difficult eh?

We look at ourselves for example. Birth was not well understood a long time ago, despite being a major process. Now we know how that baby develops, what cells do what, ect. Now we no longer say some mis-understood force made the baby. Now we say the baby grew in the uterus, but that we were designed with that ability. the point i'm trying to make here, is that whenever something is explained, the ID explination just steps back a bit. To new, further unexplained things.

Originally Posted by LuxAeterna

If you did, then you would never get anywhere. If there were an infinite number of steps to get to point B, then there would always be an infinite number of steps to make before reaching point B. Therefore, you would never reach it. Thus, our universe has to have an ultimate beginning. The chain of causation has to stop somewhere, or else existence would never be able to arrive at this point.[/b]

I did not know that the universe had a point B, so to speak, to reach. Now you imply that the universe was created for a purpose, (assuming it was created). However, if all that exists is either, the universe, or, God/Designer, what purpose might that be? Nothing we, or anything else for that matter, do, would have any meaning at all except to the designer. So lets assume for the sake of the point I'm making that "he" created the universe to learn something. He would then have a need or want to learn that lesson. Where would he apply this lesson. His universe? If so then he must have created our universe from his universe, thus making our universe less complex than his. Now if this new universe exists as well, how complex is it? Was it designed as well.

I guess my final question for you's guys is if there is a designer, where is he? As in, how can he exist outside our universe, or does he exist inside it. In which case it would've existed before him.

Originally Posted by Universal

Why can't the universe have an explanation outside of itself that does not have consciousness? I believe in the argument about existence external to the universe, but I don't see why it has to be something with a mind and a personality.[/b]

Well, it doesn't have to be explained with God. But I think that it makes the most sense and is the most reasonable. It would explain why we happened to have all the precisely right conditions to bring about a coherent universe with sentient, volitional beings. It also, I think, fulfills the deepest human hungers: the hunger for meaning, purpose, for a reason for everything to be here. Only with God can we have meaning, because otherwise everything is just a random, senseless blip in the nothingness.

-LUX

Originally Posted by Adanac

Okay, so we've established that we are comparing ourselves, and the things we know, to judge how complex the universe is. Again, I think this is faulty. The universe is so unimaginably huge, that this is worse than comparing ourselves to a single-celled organism. Note I said unimaginably huge. By that, I mean huge compared to anything we know. At the same time, to use your ball analogy, the universe is just one ball. We can't pull out another ball and compare. So this "designer" ( ) would have to be able to understand said complex universe and all inhabitants, in order to construct it. He would have to base this on something. I encourage you to create a new colour. Difficult eh?[/b]

First of all, human beings are ridiculously finite. We are painfully limited in both space and time. So it makes sense that most of what we do has to be based on something else. We are dependent beings in a universe made up of dependent things. Everything we see is dependent on something else for the way it is.

For example: A vase falling off a table is dependent on a person knocking it off. That is dependent on the person being clumsy, which is dependent on him having drunk to much, which is dependent on him existing, which is dependent on his parents having sex, etc. etc. on down until we get to the big bang 14 or 15 billion years ago when this universe of dependent reality suddenly came into existence.

So it makes perfect sense that temporal, finite beings are dependent in their imagination on the universe around them. God, on the other hand, is infinite, eternal, and utterly self-sufficient. God does not depend on anything in any way whatsoever. That is part of his nature. So if he were to imagine a universe, there is no need for him to base it on anything.

Besides, humans can come up with things that don't exists. For example: a cube in four dimension. Impossible to imagine, but still we thought it up even though such a thing does not exist.

We look at ourselves for example. Birth was not well understood a long time ago, despite being a major process. Now we know how that baby develops, what cells do what, ect. Now we no longer say some mis-understood force made the baby. Now we say the baby grew in the uterus, but that we were designed with that ability. the point i'm trying to make here, is that whenever something is explained, the ID explination just steps back a bit. To new, further unexplained things.[/b]

Well, of course. But there is something that can never be explained. How the universe got here. Science will never, ever, ever, be able to explain it. Why? Because science is making observations and drawing conclusions based on those observations. But we cannot see past the beginning of our own existence. Therefore, science will never be able to say one way or the other how we got here. Period.

I did not know that the universe had a point B, so to speak, to reach.[/b]

"Point B" is any point. Take for example our present point in time. If the universe has no causeless cause (a cause outside the rules of cause and effect), but rather was an infinite chain of cause and effect, we would never be able to get to our present point in time, because there would alway be an infinite number of steps before reaching this point.

Now you imply that the universe was created for a purpose, (assuming it was created). However, if all that exists is either, the universe, or, God/Designer, what purpose might that be? Nothing we, or anything else for that matter, do, would have any meaning at all except to the designer. So lets assume for the sake of the point I'm making that "he" created the universe to learn something. He would then have a need or want to learn that lesson. Where would he apply this lesson. His universe? If so then he must have created our universe from his universe, thus making our universe less complex than his. Now if this new universe exists as well, how complex is it? Was it designed as well.[/b]

Of all reasons for God choosing to create the universe, why would you pick "to learn something"? Assuming we are talking of the traditional God, that is, the all-knowing God, then there would be nothing for him to learn. Furthermore, God does not have his own universe. How can there exist a space that can contain the infinite?

Now, I will tell you why I think that God created the universe. For love. God is love, and so, out of a desire to share his love, he created autonomous beings, separate from himself and free to love or reject him. The universe exists so that we can share in the love of our Creator and give that love back to him in an eternal exchange.

I can think of no greater reason for what is to be than that.

I guess my final question for you's guys is if there is a designer, where is he? As in, how can he exist outside our universe, or does he exist inside it. In which case it would've existed before him.[/b]

God exists outside the bounds of space and time, yet he is also present at every point in space and every point in time. He exists outside of his creation, and yet he makes himself omnipresent within his creation. It's a bit of a mystery.

-LUX

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

I understand it perfectly[/b]

Can you explain it to me, cos I sure don't understand it.

Therefore, science will never be able to say one way or the other how we got here. Period.[/b]

The big bang created the universe this is caused by a singularity made out of nothing or that the universe has always been and their was a big bang with no singularity i.e. look up on hawkings. See science has anwser why we are here.

As I see it we can explain why we are here without god. Plus we don't need god for life or the universe. Their is no god see science can't disprove god, however it can explain everything else in a logical way that doesn't involve god. If their was a god then I would see it as a kind of force say like quantum physics or a complex pattern that underlines everything not a stupid big boss type figure.

For example: a cube in four dimension. Impossible to imagine, but still we thought it up even though such a thing does not exist.[/b]

Bit off topic here but it is suspected that it does exist. I think it's called string theory or something.

So it makes perfect sense that temporal, finite beings are dependent in their imagination on the universe around them.[/b]

Humans created God. Not according to any religons, but humans thought up the concept of god. Thus, God is limited by the fact that we have imagined him. We did not imagine him you say... how so? We wrote books on him. We passed down stories. No one was around to see the big bang, (if that is what happened), and no one was around to see god spring into existance, which he must have done.
If, somehow, god never "sprang" into existance, and was simply always there, how could we imagine him if our imaginations are limited by the universe around us. We are temporal and finite, God is not. With the limitation of imagination you implied, how could we possibly consider him?

"Point B" is any point. Take for example our present point in time. If the universe has no causeless cause (a cause outside the rules of cause and effect), but rather was an infinite chain of cause and effect, we would never be able to get to our present point in time, because there would alway be an infinite number of steps before reaching this point.[/b]

God, on the other hand, is infinite, eternal, and utterly self-sufficient.[/b]

Going by your logic, if God is infinite, then how did he get to point B. If he is infinite than that means he too has an infinite number of steps to get here, so that means he can't be here.

And as you said, if the universe is an infinite chain of cause and effect, then not only would there be an infinite number of steps to get to now, there would also be an infinite number of steps after now, all existing at the same "time" so to speak.

Now, I will tell you why I think that God created the universe. For love. God is love, and so, out of a desire to share his love, he created autonomous beings, separate from himself and free to love or reject him. The universe exists so that we can share in the love of our Creator and give that love back to him in an eternal exchange.

I can think of no greater reason for what is to be than that.[/b]

I am fairly sure that love is a human emotion. Beavers are more logical than humans. Yes, a beaver can feel pain, but pain is not an emotion, it is a sensation.
What about those mice that get depressed and don't want to eat after extreme pain. Hey, even dogs and beavers can get depressd and not eat right?
No. they don't get "depressed", they get unsure. Unsure of what to do. They just can't handle anymore.
A human will base decisions on logic, instincts, and emotion. A lesser animal (we are animals too) will use logic and its instincts.


That was just a theory by the way. I'm entitled to them too right, .


EDIT:

Well, of course. But there is something that can never be explained. How the universe got here. Science will never, ever, ever, be able to explain it.[/b]

Also, ID is a scientific theory. Or so it is claimed.

Originally Posted by Lord

Can you explain it to me, cos I sure don't understand it.[/b]

Um, ok. Animals would be born with slight differences. If these differences increased their chance of survival, they would mate and the genes would cause their babies to be born with those better differences. If they were born with slight differences that decreased their chance of survival they would die out before having babies. So, very slowly, they would get more and more complex, and would become better and better at surviving.

(Even though I wrote my explanation as fact, I didn't mean to say it was true or I agreed with it.)