• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Intelligent Design

Apr 3, 2011
23
2
✟15,153.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
 

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟28,277.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
ID is creationism in disguise: Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me to be a valid conclusion, after observing the universe, that the universe was created with a purpose in mind. Scientific evidence points unanimously to be the Big Bang, in which the universe emerged from a single point at a specific moment in time. Since it's impossible for a thing to be produced out of nothingness, that means something created the universe. The question then is, was there an intelligent being who designed the universe with specific properties, or just some non-thinking thing which popped out the universe without giving it any specific properties?

Well, what do we observe about the universe? First of all, the universe has matter, yet if it was created unthinkingly, there's no reason why the universe should have matter. Second, things in the universe move, yet if it was created unthinkingly, there's no reason why there should be movement. Third, matter is regular. For instance, all electrons have exactly the same mass and charge, and the same for all protons and all neutrons. If the universe was created unthinkingly, there's no reason for this regularity. Fourth, the universe has physical laws, such as gravity and electric force. If the universe was created unthinkingly, there's no reason for these laws to exist. And so on. There are a great many features of this universe that would have no reason to exist if it came into being from an unthinking system.

Some people espouse that there is a "multiverse" consisting of many universes, and that we perceive this universe as being acceptable for life when in reality each universe within the multiverse has randomly chosen properties, which makes a few universes haibtable by chance. However, I don't see that as changing the issue. For example, if there were a multiverse of universes that had no matter, then none of the individual universes would have matter, and thus none would have life. If there were a multiverse of universes with no physical laws, then none of the individual universes would have physical laws, and hence none would be habitable. In addition, a multiverse is obviously much more complex than a single universe and a being capable of creating that single universe.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Scientific evidence points unanimously to be the Big Bang, in which the universe emerged from a single point at a specific moment in time.

Actually, Big Bang theory does not say what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang.

Since it's impossible for a thing to be produced out of nothingness, that means something created the universe.

That's assuming that the universe was "produced out of nothingness". If the start of the Big Bang was the start of time, then it wasn't produced out of nothingness, because there was no time, and therefore no nothingness, before its start.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The phrase "intelligent design" is too politically charged to get much good discussion about it. There is a legitimate scientific question in there (is it possible to detect if an object was designed by an intelligent agent?) but it so quickly becomes linked to God that many people struggle to approach the question objectively.

I think the best attempt was by Dembski in his PhD work (The Design Inference). Unfortunately, he too was caught up in the politics of the issue and his association with the Discovery Institute means opponents of ID no longer listen to him. Still, his early work raises some very interesting questions and he set the framework of the discussion. One can tell because even opponents of ID use his terminology to try to refute his conclusions. For example, I have a paper that talks about how a "Leibnizian conception" better suits the statistical framework than Dembski's "Newtonian conception," thereby opening the possibility of natural causes ... yeah, right.

The questions are very interesting, and the solution Dembski proposed is very attractive. The whole thing is worthwhile just because of the discussion it fosters (well, the calm discussions that avoid name-calling anyway). But, in the end, it's not going to "prove" anything. Like every proposal for a scientific tapestry, it rests on a framework of assumptions that allow multiple solutions. People can debate those assumptions for an eternity and still never resolve anything.

But discussion always has a chance to produce something of merit.
 
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟76,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, what do we observe about the universe? First of all, the universe has matter, yet if it was created unthinkingly, there's no reason why the universe should have matter. Second, things in the universe move, yet if it was created unthinkingly, there's no reason why there should be movement. Third, matter is regular. For instance, all electrons have exactly the same mass and charge, and the same for all protons and all neutrons. If the universe was created unthinkingly, there's no reason for this regularity. Fourth, the universe has physical laws, such as gravity and electric force. If the universe was created unthinkingly, there's no reason for these laws to exist. And so on. There are a great many features of this universe that would have no reason to exist if it came into being from an unthinking system.

What is the reason for why the universe should have matter, if it was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for why there should be movement, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for for this regularity of matter, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for these physical laws to exist, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for this, what is the reason for that, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

Answer: [null]
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?

More Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

It's a fine metaphysical position except that it introduces one more complicated unexplained entity (the designer) to explain the universe leaving the system less explained than no attempted explanation at all.

It's bad as a scientific position because we can not make any predictions based on saying "an intelligent designer did it", so it is an explanation that explains EVERY possible set of data and thus none of them.

So it's a metaphysical explanation that actually unexplained things, or a scientific theory that makes no predictions.

It's only use is in it's ability to provide some faux legitimacy to certain peoples religious beliefs, if that can indeed be considered useful.
 
Upvote 0

Phaedron777

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2011
413
12
✟643.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The mass media aren't going to blatantly come out and admit evolution is wrong, and God is right, therefore it is my self appointed mission to spread this video across all corners of the net. It's time for people to wake up and get with the program. Intelligent design is in, natural selection, evolution, and Darwin are out. The indisputable proof will require one hour of your time. Watch while you can, the video has been removed and submitted several times. They don't want you to know the truth.

YouTube - Scientific Proof of God Documentary (Full Length)
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
What is the reason for why the universe should have matter, if it was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for why there should be movement, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for for this regularity of matter, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?

What is the reason for these physical laws to exist, if the universe was created "thinkingly"?
Intelligent design theory asserts that the intelligence which created the universe did so with a goal in mind, namely of creating the universe such that a race of sentient beings (us) could inhabit it, though the precise phrasing of the idea varies a bit from on proponent to the next. All of the features of the universes that I mentioned are necessary for us to exist. With no matter in the universe, we would not exist. With no movement in the universe, we would not exist. With no regularity or no physical laws, we would not exist.

Answer: [null]
I've just answered. Generally it's not such a good idea to ask a question and then declare that your opponent has no answer in the same post.

Good day.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Actually, Big Bang theory does not say what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang.
...
That's assuming that the universe was "produced out of nothingness". If the start of the Big Bang was the start of time, then it wasn't produced out of nothingness, because there was no time, and therefore no nothingness, before its start.
In response to the first point, I never said that the Big Bang theory says anything about what preceded the Big Bang. I only said that it says that there was a Big Bang.

In response to the second point, that's semantic noodling about "nothingness". The great thing about nothingness is that the presense of nothingness and the absense of all things including nothingness are the same thing: nothingness. The point is that according to the Big Bang theory, the universe came from a single point (in both space and time). The further point is that that point must have had a cause. In other words, there must have been some reason why the singularity in space and time occurred. So we posit two possible causes: an intelligent designer that made a universe, or a non-intelligent system that popped out a universe. And (for the purposes of this debate) we have only the universe itself to judge by, so we ask whether that universe appears more like the product of an intelligent designer or a non-intelligent system.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
In response to the first point, I never said that the Big Bang theory says anything about what preceded the Big Bang. I only said that it says that there was a Big Bang.

Fair enough.

In response to the second point, that's semantic noodling about "nothingness".

No, not at all. My point has nothing to do with mere semantics.

The great thing about nothingness is that the presense of nothingness and the absense of all things including nothingness are the same thing: nothingness.

And I was saying that if time begins with the Big Bang, there is no "nothingness" preceding the Big Bang. This isn't just semantics. It is a statement about the nature of time and existence.

The point is that according to the Big Bang theory, the universe came from a single point (in both space and time).

It doesn't have to be a "single point", if you mean a zero-dimensional point.

The further point is that that point must have had a cause.

No, it doesn't. Not unless the Big Bang was not the start of time. In that case, one would have to discuss the process of change that lead to that point. But if time starts with the Big Bang, there is no process of change that led to that point, and so there is no need for a cause.

So we posit two possible causes: an intelligent designer

A designer no less in need of an explanation, if one is always required.

or a non-intelligent system that popped out a universe.

Or a non-intelligent system that produced the non-intelligent system we see today.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
before anyone should speak any further, they should do a search for "logical fallacies" and spend at least an hour developing "critical thinking" skills.

Or use the critical thinking skills you have already developed. Now, let's continue.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
well clearly that has not yet happened.....

Are you having fun trolling? The adults have issues to discuss.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrumpGrump
Upvote 0

jonsun80

Newbie
Apr 3, 2011
293
16
✟23,035.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Not trolling and I appreciate the insults. There are many fallacies abound already and I'm not calling them out specifically because thats just giving a fish. sorry if you're offended but if its any consolation I wasn't aiming it toward you. If you think carrying on a discussion steeped in fallacy is going to be anything more than a steaming pile of you know what, then fine.
 
Upvote 0

jonsun80

Newbie
Apr 3, 2011
293
16
✟23,035.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
for instance saying "how could there not be intelligent design in the universe" is called begging the question. It answers nothing and assumes everything. So the very concept of this thread is just going to go around and around in circles and nothing will ever move forward.



so....who are the adults again :scratch:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eudaimonist
Upvote 0

Lord Emsworth

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
Oct 10, 2004
51,745
421
Through the cables and the underground ...
✟76,459.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Intelligent design theory asserts that the intelligence which created the universe did so with a goal in mind, namely of creating the universe such that a race of sentient beings (us) could inhabit it, though the precise phrasing of the idea varies a bit from on proponent to the next. All of the features of the universes that I mentioned are necessary for us to exist. With no matter in the universe, we would not exist. With no movement in the universe, we would not exist. With no regularity or no physical laws, we would not exist.

I've just answered.

You have probably heard of the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"? It was coined as an example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed (and even nice sounding if your wish), yet semantically meaningless and void. So, just because you can come up with something that superficially forms a sentence or so, it does not mean in a long shot that you are actually expressing something meaningful.


And this is just one thing, which presumes that you are even superficially giving the appearance of explaining things. I debate that in the case of your first paragraph. There is nothing, which even on the surface passes muster as explanation for why - what was it again? - the universe should have matter, etc, if it was created "thinkingly" (what ever that means anyway).

Giving good explanations, firstly involves hard, really hard, work, and secondly should not be confused with empty blah, blah.

(Sorry, if that sounds a little harsh, but there you go.)



Generally it's not such a good idea to ask a question and then declare that your opponent has no answer in the same post.

I agree. However, you are not my opponent, strictly speaking. The story is more complex that just "me vs you". It is rather, "me, and what I have seen, heard, read throughout all these years about ID, Creationism, Theology, blah." And yes, [null] expresses very well the amount of content, when it comes to ID and explanations to *stuff*.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
And this is just one thing, which presumes that you are even superficially giving the appearance of explaining things. I debate that in the case of your first paragraph. There is nothing, which even on the surface passes muster as explanation for why - what was it again? - the universe should have matter, etc, if it was created "thinkingly" (what ever that means anyway).
It wasn't me who used the word "thinkingly"; it was you. If you are not able to understand what the word means, that raises the question of why you used it.

On the original point, nothing in my post was intended to address the question of whether the universe should have matter; rather, it proceded from the observable fact that the universe does have matter, as well as movement, regularity, physical laws, and so forth. Let me repeat the argument in numberical steps. (1) The universe began at a specific time; we call this beginning the Big Bang. (2) The cause of the Big Bang was either something with intelligence or something without intelligence. (3) If something without intelligence caused the Big Bang, then the features of the universe arose randomly without any design. (4) Among all possible universes only an insignificantly small percentage could support us or any thinking being, hence the odds of that our universe arose randomly are vanishly small. (5) Hence we can dismiss the idea that the universe was created without intelligence as being ridiculously improbable, and by process of elimination we arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created with intelligence.

Now all of those statements have meaning, so for you to call them "empty blah, blah" or "meaningless and void" is a cop out. Instead, you should explain which of the five statements you disagree with and give reasons for your disagreement.

I agree. However, you are not my opponent, strictly speaking. The story is more complex that just "me vs you". It is rather, "me, and what I have seen, heard, read throughout all these years about ID, Creationism, Theology, blah." And yes, [null] expresses very well the amount of content, when it comes to ID and explanations to *stuff*.
Okay, if you'd like to debate the entirey of the argument advanced by proponents of intelligent design I'm willing to do so. Which books by intelligent design proponents have you read, and what specifically did you find lacking in their arguments?
 
Upvote 0