2 proofs that nature was designed

[Guy Threepwood]

You can't have evolution if you don't have the event that set it in motion. For example, I believe that God created everything in the beginning so nothing would exist if he didn't.

I think that's what it all boils down to

Without creative imagination, you are left with an infinite regression of mere reactions to pre-existing conditions, nothing truly novel can come into existence

as in the OP, automated function does not suggest automated origin

 

[pitabread]

Without creative imagination, you are left with an infinite regression of mere reactions to pre-existing conditions, nothing truly novel can come into existence

Why couldn't it? And for that matter, what constitutes something being "truly novel"?

 

[Speedwell]

I think that's what it all boils down to

Without creative imagination, you are left with an infinite regression of mere reactions to pre-existing conditions, nothing truly novel can come into existence

as in the OP, automated function does not suggest automated origin

What it appears to boil down to is an extremely rigid and ill-informed idea of the options for divine causality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why couldn't it? And for that matter, what constitutes something being "truly novel"?

Creative imagination, the capacity to act according to imagined future events, rather than merely reacting to past ones
This is a capability unique to a conscious mind that can most certainly achieve things that would be impossible otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

Creative imagination, the capacity to act according to imagined future events, rather than merely reacting to past ones
This is a capability unique to a conscious mind that can most certainly achieve things that would be impossible otherwise.

This doesn't answer my questions. Why would this necessarily be the case? And when you talk about something being "truly novel" what does that mean?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This doesn't answer my questions. Why would this necessarily be the case? And when you talk about something being "truly novel" what does that mean?

Truly novel would be something that required creative imagination to exist
otherwise it is a mere product of existing laws

Without creative imagination, you are confined to an infinite regression of existing conditions- required to support every event- i.e. a paradox

Creative imagination is the only phenomena which can solve this paradox

 

[Speedwell]

Truly novel would be something that required creative imagination to exist
otherwise it is a mere product of existing laws

Without creative imagination, you are confined to an infinite regression of existing conditions- required to support every event- i.e. a paradox

Creative imagination is the only phenomena which can solve this paradox

Are you dizzy yet? Maybe you had better just sit down.

 

[pitabread]

Truly novel would be something that required creative imagination to exist
otherwise it is a mere product of existing laws

That's just a circular definition. It doesn't explain what you actually mean by it.

Without creative imagination, you are confined to an infinite regression of existing conditions- required to support every event- i.e. a paradox

Creative imagination is the only phenomena which can solve this paradox

You keep asserting this, but you haven't explained why this should be the case.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's just a circular definition. It doesn't explain what you actually mean by it.

You keep asserting this, but you haven't explained why this should be the case.

laws can only obey other laws
Creative intelligence can create new laws

that's about as clear a distinction as you can get

 

[pitabread]

laws can only obey other laws
Creative intelligence can create new laws

that's about as clear a distinction as you can get

You're just making more unsupported assertions. I see no reason to accept anything you're claiming as valid.

(I'm not even sure what you think "laws" are in this instance.)

 

[Speedwell]

laws can only obey other laws
Creative intelligence can create new laws

that's about as clear a distinction as you can get

No, it's still circular. Scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. The are human constructs derived from observations of natural phenomena and are consequently based in inductive logic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Truly novel would be something that required creative imagination to exist
otherwise it is a mere product of existing laws

Without creative imagination, you are confined to an infinite regression of existing conditions- required to support every event- i.e. a paradox

Creative imagination is the only phenomena which can solve this paradox

Creative imagination just means combining & arranging things in new ways or extrapolating concepts or ideas. Nothing that is not, in principle, computational.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it's still circular. Scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. The are human constructs derived from observations of natural phenomena and are consequently based in inductive logic.

There is no circular reasoning required, to observe that Mount Rushmore required creative intelligence to exist, and that laws of nature alone could not achieve the same

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creative imagination just means combining & arranging things in new ways or extrapolating concepts or ideas. Nothing that is not, in principle, computational.

exactly- natural laws do not extrapolate their own new concepts, they simply obey existing ones

before getting mired in semantics, the distinction is clear- we can cause certain events to happen by our capacity to imagine, visualize a future consequence- rather than simply react to one

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

exactly- natural laws do not extrapolate their own new concepts, they simply obey existing ones

The process of evolution generates novel arrangements and combinations of existing elements - which we identify in terms of concepts - e.g. hairs, scales, & feathers, or legs, wings, & flippers, from a simple ancestral element.

before getting mired in semantics, the distinction is clear- we can cause certain events to happen by our capacity to imagine, visualize a future consequence- rather than simply react to one

Humans are not the only creatures to plan ahead; we're just exceptionally good at it.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no circular reasoning required, to observe that Mount Rushmore required creative intelligence to exist, and that laws of nature alone could not achieve the same

No, that Mt. Rushmore argument is not going to work. Or rather, it's already been worked to death without effect.

 

[Speedwell]

exactly- natural laws do not extrapolate their own new concepts, they simply obey existing ones

before getting mired in semantics, the distinction is clear- we can cause certain events to happen by our capacity to imagine, visualize a future consequence- rather than simply react to one

Right. But the process of evolution does not imagine or visualize a future consequence. It doesn't need to.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The process of evolution generates novel arrangements and combinations of existing elements - which we identify in terms of concepts - e.g. hairs, scales, & feathers, or legs, wings, & flippers, from a simple ancestral element.

not on purpose according to your position if I remember correctly!

Humans are not the only creatures to plan ahead; we're just exceptionally good at it.

Agreed- 'planning ahead' is as good away to describe the phenomena as any and can apply to any conscious intelligence- including God

the 'WOW' signal was presumably not imagined to be necessarily human, but represented the fingerprint of 'planning ahead' utilizing a radio frequency suitable for communication (inconclusive as may be)

 

[Speedwell]

not on purpose according to your position if I remember correctly!

Now you are beginning to get it, I think.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

not on purpose according to your position if I remember correctly!

Exactly; creativity doesn't require purpose.

the 'WOW' signal was presumably not imagined to be necessarily human, but represented the fingerprint of 'planning ahead' utilizing a radio frequency suitable for communication (inconclusive as may be)

The 'WOW' signal suggested technological origin, with all that implies.