MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Speedwell]

Seems like a trick question. What is your point?

He wants to know whether you are a mathematical realist or not.

 

[durangodawood]

Seems like a trick question. What is your point?

It like a snowflake (a precious precious snowflake!). Look how amazing and complex and geometrically ordered it is! Someone powerful must have designed that snowflake. How could that snowflake have come about naturally. I mean in the whole history of the world there's never been a snowflake like that. And the amazing one next to it too.

Or it could be the result of a few simple initial conditions of chemistry as applied in the chaos of the real world...? Nahhh.

(Oh, as to your question: Yeah I was still pressing the issue of mathematical realism.)

 

[Radrook]

It like a snowflake (a precious precious snowflake!). Look how amazing and complex and geometrically ordered it is! Someone powerful must have designed that snowflake. How could that snowflake have come about naturally. I mean in the whole history of the world there's never been a snowflake like that. And the amazing one next to it too.

Or it could be the result of a few simple initial conditions of chemistry as applied in the chaos of the real world...? Nahhh.

(Oh, as to your question: Yeah I was still pressing the issue of mathematical realism.)

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew that such laws were going to produce microscopic works of art.

BTW
At 3:39 of the following video

it says that a lot of factors which scientist don't even understand are involved.

So we take the following view:

 

[bhsmte]

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew that such laws were going to produce microscopic works of art.

BTW
At 3:39 of the following video

it says that a lot of factors which scientist don't even understand are involved.

So we take the following view:

Who is "we"?

 

[Radrook]

Who is "we"?

We believers in an intelligent designer.

 

[KCfromNC]

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew

He? I thought we weren't supposed to discuss the details of who the designer is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew that such laws were going to produce microscopic works of art.

Are you saying this 'designer' established the laws of physics and let the universe evolve according to them?

Or do you think the 'designer' interferes with the laws it established in order to achieve some desired result?

 

[bhsmte]

We believers in an intelligent designer.

Tell us about what you perceive as this intelligent designer.

 

[Radrook]

Are you saying this 'designer' established the laws of physics and let the universe evolve according to them?

Or do you think the 'designer' interferes with the laws it established in order to achieve some desired result?

No, I am not arguing in favored of one thing or the other in relation theistic evolution. I am merely saying that in the case of snow flakes that their forming automatically in accordance with the laws of nature doesn't prove that they were not intended or designed to do so by an intelligent designer. Things that operate automatically aren't assumed to have created themselves just because they do so. The premise is flawed. Automatic function does not negate design towards a purpose.

 

[durangodawood]

....The premise is flawed. Automatic function does not negate design towards a purpose.

I think youre drawing the wrong premise from my snowflake example.

I'm not intending to negate the idea of a designer. I'm simply showing where the designer-idea is not necessary to explain the outcome. In no way am i proving that there is no designer.

Seems like this distinction gets lost time and time again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I am not arguing in favored of one thing or the other in relation theistic evolution.

I didn't mention theistic evolution. Can't you just answer a simple question?

I am merely saying that in the case of snow flakes that their forming automatically in accordance with the laws of nature doesn't prove that they were not intended or designed to do so by an intelligent designer. Things that operate automatically aren't assumed to have created themselves just because they do so. The premise is flawed. Automatic function does not negate design towards a purpose.

You're arguing a straw man - nobody is saying accordance with the laws of precludes intelligent design - after all, we work in accord with the laws of nature and we design things. The argument is about parsimony - if the operation of natural laws alone can produce such things, an intelligent designer is redundant; to paraphrase Laplace, we have no need of that hypothesis.

To establish the need for an intelligent designer, you need to show either that things cannot be the way they are without one, or to demonstrate where and how one is involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you are not aware of, does not define non-existing.

Wow.

Did you just claim that everything that can be mathematically described, exists by definition?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that they point to an intelligent designer. The nature of that intelligent designer is totally irrelevant to the conclusion of intelligent design itself. It would be like demanding to know who exactly built a bridge before we agree to admit that it was designed.

Can I conclude from this that in your opinion, we would not be able to make sense of the universe by using mathematical models to describe said universe or aspects thereof?

 

[Radrook]

I didn't mention theistic evolution. Can't you just answer a simple question?

You're arguing a straw man - nobody is saying accordance with the laws of precludes intelligent design - after all, we work in accord with the laws of nature and we design things. The argument is about parsimony - if the operation of natural laws alone can produce such things, an intelligent designer is redundant; to paraphrase Laplace, we have no need of that hypothesis.

To establish the need for an intelligent designer, you need to show either that things cannot be the way they are without one, or to demonstrate where and how one is involved.

I need to show you that blind matter doesn't plan and program DNA with info on how to produce a brain? LOL! Thanx for the joke! Let's just say we disagree and be done with the useless back and forth.

 

[Radrook]

Dear honorable and venerable: Readers

Please note that I have repeatedly and patiently striven might and main to clearly explain what my position is in reference to this subject is but to totally no avail. Instead, there is always the inevitable and constant claims that I am being unclear, evasive and obfuscating the issues involved. I fervently invite you dear reader to meticulously examine all my responses in order to verify for yourselves that what I am saying is totally true. That there is really no justifiable reason to constantly claim either complete obscurity or partial lack of clarity. That I have been exceedingy forthright in my explanations and have exercised both admirable prudence and wisdom where impertinent impatience and ghastly rudeness might have been a temptation. I wait with bated breath-dear reader as you objectively and meticulously purvey the abundant evidence which I gladly and confidently place at your disposal for your judicious evaluation.

Your Humble servant and fellow human bean
Radrook

 

[Loudmouth]

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.[1][2]

It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.[3]

A common case of equivocation is the fallacious use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.
Equivocation - Wikipedia

Equivocation: see also "Radrook's favorite fallacy to commit in these discussion".

 

[Loudmouth]

I need to show you that blind matter doesn't plan and program DNA with info on how to produce a brain?

You need to show that it requires planning and programming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear honorable and venerable: Readers

Please note that I have repeatedly and patiently striven might and main to clearly explain what my position is in reference to this subject is but to totally no avail.

Your position is quite clear. You believe, without any evidence, that the biodiversity we see around us requires planning and programming.

The problem is that it is just a belief. You offer no evidence that this is the case. Beliefs aren't evidence.

At the same time, you often seem to agree that something like the human brain does not require planning or programming. Instead, you say that you accept theistic evolution which does not require planning or programming. All it requires is random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

The way we see it is that the laws of physics were established by the designer and he knew that such laws were going to produce microscopic works of art.

That's a belief. Beliefs aren't evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I am not arguing in favored of one thing or the other in relation theistic evolution. I am merely saying that in the case of snow flakes that their forming automatically in accordance with the laws of nature doesn't prove that they were not intended or designed to do so by an intelligent designer.

That's exactly what it means. Every definition of intelligent design states that intelligent design is falsified if we can find a natural process that explains the observation. Click on the links in your own freaking signature. They say that very thing.