Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Couple things. Some theologians like William Lane Craig posit that God existed outside of time sans the universe, and stepped within time with the creation of the universe.

    There's a distinction between "Intelligent Design", made popular by the Discovery Institute, and which serves as a rival to the theory of evolution, and "intelligent design" that encompasses teleological arguments for the fine tuning of the universe. It sounds like this thread is attempting to conflate the two, when they're not necessarily the same. So, for instance, there are plenty of theists that accept teleological arguments, yet reject DI's ID.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      You contradict yourself. God is "outside time and space", yet He exists "at all times", and "in all places", both of which are inside time and space. Inside or outside? Does God exist here (inside space) and now (inside time) or not? You need to resolve this contradiction.
      I don't see why it should be a bifurcation, hence I see no contradiction. Think more in terms of a superset/subset relation instead two disjoint sets.

      God parted the sea for Moses. That action had a beginning and an ending. Are you saying that God did not part the sea for Moses? Actions within time have a beginning and an ending. If God cannot act with a beginning and an ending then God cannot act within time and so He is no longer omnipotent -- His actions are limited to outside time and barred inside time. Another contradiction to resolve.
      Same thing here. It never occurred to me you would think being outside time would imply to you He wouldn't also be able to act inside it when it suited His purposes. I would have addressed that issue had I but known.


      Not meaningless. How can a God who is outside space act within space to part the sea for Moses? How can a God who is outside time act within time to part the sea for Moses?

      rossum
      to be outside time doesn't necessarily imply separation from time. It means to be unaffected by it, unbound by it. A 3 dimensional object can still have a 2 dimensional surface or intersection.


      Jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-14-2017, 04:48 PM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rossum View Post
        I do not. ID is not science.

        That is exactly what I am saying. If your start with an intelligent designer then you have not explained the origin of intelligence; you have merely assumed it.


        Look at the top left of my posts. I am not Christian. I do not necessarily accept the presuppositions of the Abrahamic religions.

        rossum
        You don't have to be a Christian to live with the created universe.

        You don't have to address the 'origin of intelligence' if this intelligence exists apart from creation. Like mentioned earlier, it would be beyond our realm of investigation.

        If you try to assume that intelligence came out of thin air, then you have quite a lot of work to do to prove such a possibility.

        I had seen you were Buddhist and didn't seek to address you as a Christian. Your lack of acceptance of the presuppositions of Christianity may be useful as a thought experiment but your alternative approach likely just leaves you in a purely hypothetical world.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          I don't see why it should be a bifurcation
          I do see it that way. Outside implies "not inside". Being outside is not the same as being both inside and outside. You made a definite statement of "outside", not a statement of "both outside and inside" as would be implied by omnipresence.

          Think more in terms of a superset/subset relation instead two disjoint sets.
          A subset in contained within the superset. Outside and inside are disjoint sets; both are subsets of "inside and outside".

          Same thing here. It never occurred to me you would think being outside time would imply to you He wouldn't also be able to act inside it when it suited His purposes.
          Same thing. Omnipresence implies both outside and inside; both, not just one. There is also the problem with beginnings and endings. God acting in time does have beginnings and endings to His actions.

          I would have addressed that issue had I but known.
          The Buddhist approach to these questions can be somewhat different. For example, cause and effect are seen as mutually contingent, neither having a non-contingent independent existence.

          rossum

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            There's a distinction between "Intelligent Design", made popular by the Discovery Institute, and which serves as a rival to the theory of evolution, and "intelligent design" that encompasses teleological arguments for the fine tuning of the universe.
            Good point. I am mainly pointing out an obvious gap in the DI-ID proposal.

            Given that, if God is intelligent then the teleological argument also suffers from the a similar problem. Any property of God: intelligence, life, thought, existence etc. is assumed rather than explained.

            So, for instance, there are plenty of theists that accept teleological arguments, yet reject DI's ID.
            Agreed. DI-ID has many obvious flaws, and is more intended as politics rather than science.

            rossum

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by psstein View Post
              I'm shocked, we agree on something.

              Intelligent Design fails to explain a lot of issues and has some very bad theological consequences.
              I had high hopes for it when it was first making waves and bought Behe's Darwin's Black Box. After reading it and several articles by ID advocates it quickly became apparent that much of their argument relied on a God-of-the-gaps assertions. Very disappointed.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                No, I have not imagined an infinite regression. If intelligence is cause by chance then there is no infinite regression. If intelligence is cause by necessity then there is no infinite regression. If intelligence is caused by an unintelligent designer then there is no infinite regression.
                I do not see Intelligent Design as science, but your meaningless distinction between an intelligent designer and a unintelligent designer depends only upon the assumption that the intelligent designer had to be designed, ergo infinite regression.

                Any view of origins requires something that exists but was not made, self-existent.

                Little children ask the sort of question you are posting here as a limit to what the designer can be.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rossum View Post
                  Given that, if God is intelligent then the teleological argument also suffers from the a similar problem. Any property of God: intelligence, life, thought, existence etc. is assumed rather than explained.
                  Yes, I realize that this is your view. I have the feeling, though, that you seem to think the argument in your OP is novel. Something unique. Something most of the Christians here haven't seen or considered before. I'm sorry to tell you that it isn't unique. It's simply the "if God created the universe, then who created God?" argument re-wrapped with a focus on one particular property of God. You could make the same kinda odd argument with just about any of God's properties that have to do with creation: "If a non-material entity created the material world, then who created the non-material entity?"Or, "If something all powerful was the cause of the universe, then who caused the something all powerful?"

                  Christians have, what they believe to be, a very satisfactory answer to this, and have been satisfied with that answer for a very very long time. That answer has been dropped here a number of times already. The popular Christian philosopher William Lane Craig discusses it briefly here:



                  Asking "Who created God", or "Who created one of God's properties", is really a case of missing the point. As Craig says, it's like asking "what is the bachelor's wife's name?" So that leaves us at an impasse. Most of us accept that God and his nature is eternal. Some of us probably even accepted this before we became Christians. You obviously don't, and don't sound prepared to change your mind anymore than most of the Christians are. So I'm curious, where were you expecting the conversation to go from here after you had found that your argument wasn't going to convince any Christians?
                  Last edited by Adrift; 07-14-2017, 09:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    I had high hopes for it when it was first making waves and bought Behe's Darwin's Black Box. After reading it and several articles by ID advocates it quickly became apparent that much of their argument relied on a God-of-the-gaps assertions. Very disappointed.
                    I may have recommended Ronald Numbers' The Creationists to you before. His updated version has quite a bit about the Discovery Institute. Behe's book was outdated even when he wrote it (I think it was 1996 or so). Kitzmiller vs. Dover, at least in my mind, demonstrated that ID was nothing more than the next step for neo-Creationism.

                    I'm certain that the relative lull in public advocacy for creationism or "alternatives to evolution" will not last.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I have the feeling, though, that you seem to think the argument in your OP is novel.
                      No, I do not. It might be novel, or at least rare, when applied specifically to DI-ID, but it is an old argument when applied to God.

                      The same argument also applies to "If the multiverse caused the universe then what caused the multiverse?" sticking to the purely naturalistic level.

                      The issue is not so much answering the question but in seeing how the question is tackled: "The multiverse has always existed so it does not need a cause."

                      Just search-and-replace "multiverse" with "God".

                      rossum

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        I do not see Intelligent Design as science, but your meaningless distinction between an intelligent designer and a unintelligent designer depends only upon the assumption that the intelligent designer had to be designed, ergo infinite regression.
                        If we are discussing the origin of intelligence, then the distinction between intelligent and unintelligent design is very relevant. Unintelligent design can explain the origin of intelligence; intelligent design cannot. The distinction is relevant to this specific question.

                        Any view of origins requires something that exists but was not made, self-existent.
                        Many views, but not "any" view. The Dharmic religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, tend to go for an infinitely old universe/multiverse so the origin question is moot.
                        At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on."

                        -- Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

                        rossum

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          rossum,

                          Looking at the complex to see the simple. Order precedes chaos. Just as the simple precedes the complex. Intelligent design is looking at the complex to understand the simple.

                          You have to start with the uncaused. The uncaused existence. And come to the understanding that everything and anything would have to be contingent upon it to exist. The uncaused existence would effectively be omnipresent possessing everything would effectively be the uncaused omniscience which constitutes the uncaused intelligence you need to start with. Being the very identity we call God.

                          Did you follow that?

                          Uncaused > uncaused existence > omnipresent > omniscient > the uncaused intelligence.

                          Where are you having a problem?
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rossum View Post
                            If we are discussing the origin of intelligence, then the distinction between intelligent and unintelligent design is very relevant. Unintelligent design can explain the origin of intelligence; intelligent design cannot. The distinction is relevant to this specific question.
                            Only because you declare it so.



                            Originally posted by rossum View Post
                            Many views, but not "any" view. The Dharmic religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, tend to go for an infinitely old universe/multiverse so the origin question is moot.
                            At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on."

                            -- Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

                            rossum
                            Still effectively self existent in different words.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Looking at the complex to see the simple. Order precedes chaos. Just as the simple precedes the complex.
                              In ID intelligence (the intelligent designer) comes first. Are you saying that intelligence is simple? If intelligence is simple, then there is no need for any designer, since simple things can arise from natural causes. Any reading of the ID literature shows that they consider living things, such as humans, to be complex and hence require design. Since humans are intelligent, while simpler organisms like jellyfish are not, that makes intelligence a complex property, not a simple property.

                              I do not accept that intelligence is simple, so I do not accept that your "the simple precedes the complex" is a good description of intelligent design. It is, however, a good description of evolution where simple organisms like jellyfish precede complex organisms like humans.

                              You have to start with the uncaused.
                              ID does not characterise its designer. When pressed, in a secular context, ID proponents will say that their designer could be advanced aliens. Those aliens do not have to be uncaused. In cosmology, the hypothesised multiverse is uncaused, though it is not intelligent. I do not see that I have to start with the uncaused. I can start with the origin of the planet Earth about 4.5 billion years ago. Events before that are not germane to this particular discussion.

                              Where are you having a problem?
                              I do not have a problem. I am pointing out a problem with the Intelligent Design hypothesis. It is ID which has the problem.

                              rossum

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                                No, I do not. It might be novel, or at least rare, when applied specifically to DI-ID, but it is an old argument when applied to God.

                                The same argument also applies to "If the multiverse caused the universe then what caused the multiverse?" sticking to the purely naturalistic level.

                                The issue is not so much answering the question but in seeing how the question is tackled: "The multiverse has always existed so it does not need a cause."

                                Just search-and-replace "multiverse" with "God".

                                rossum

                                Of course, theologians have considered this as well (again, none of this is new). Cosmologists and physicists have noted that a multiverse producing universes would itself require inflation and in turn be finely tuned, which is ironic, since the fine-tuning of our present universe is what the multiverse attempts to explain. William Lane Craig has noted that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem rules out the possibility of an eternally inflating universe or multiverse, which kinda puts the kibosh on the idea of a multiverse that has always existed. If you're curious, Australian physicist/cosmologist Luke Barnes gets into this issue and others with the multiverse theory here in his interview on Justin Brierley's radio show Unbelievable?


                                But going back to my previous post, I asked the question, where did you expect this conversation to go? Why did you post this on this forum? Were you hoping that the Christians here had not considered these things and would come to your way of thinking?
                                Last edited by Adrift; 07-15-2017, 04:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X