Question about intelligent design theory

[JohnOfSheffield]

Sure you could. Just because I know something doesn't mean I think of it. I could also choose not to. Doesn't mean I don't know, though.

You don't get it, if what will happen is already known, then nothing but that can happen, all choices are already made before you make them, hence, no free will.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Sure you could.

No, you can't.

For something to be known it must be set. So if your future is known it must be set. A set future gives you no options.

 

[02ranger]

Holy crap!! I just got the chance to check this thread again and I REALLY didn't expect it to have gone this far. Looks like I've got some reading to do. lol

 

[Tweak155]

How does the designer design himself and the framework under which he designs?

That isn't your scenario. You have a designer in an existing "framework" as you like to call it. If the designer was designed, we shouldn't assume the framework wasn't designed. The only fair assumption is we don't know the original designer's "framework".

In this instance, YOU created the scenarios of blocks bursting into other objects. In this case, you are the designer of said framework.

 

[02ranger]

Theory? Woudln't that imply scientific method?

I guess technically yes. I called it a theory in the sense that some people believe it to be true. That's probably not a good way to use that word, but that was how I meant it.

 

[sandorski]

Holy crap!! I just got the chance to check this thread again and I REALLY didn't expect it to have gone this far. Looks like I've got some reading to do. lol

Want a Megathread? Choose one of the following subjects:

1) Evolution/ID
2) Abortion
3) Religion
4) Homosexuality

 

[MJinZ]

They are the same.

If meaning is the same as value, then they would be the same word. D:

Value is something prescribed by humans, meaning may or may not be independent of an interacter or observer. For instance, there is meaning to the way a protein folds, either through its hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or structural interactions. There is meaning (our own made up ones) to favorite colors or favorite foods. There is meaning (taken or prescribed, intended or not) to language, art, music etc...

Value does not need to come into the equation, and when it does, it is often unrelated.

You're not judging their design, though.

I like boobies.
What I like is good.
Boobies; therefore good.

This is logical. It comes from a base emotion, but that changes nothing.
But it has nothing to do with judging the design of the base emotion or the design of boobies. There is no judgement about whether it serves a purpose or if it fits into a plan. It simply recognizes the link between boobies and the emotion.

For a design to be judged you have to know its purpose, and for it to be compared to its peers you have to know something about the conditions under which it must operate. But a "design" that exists in a framework of arbitrariness HAS NO PURPOSE, and its parameters are meaningless. There is no reason for the thing to be.

You cannot perform a valid operation on the thing and come out with it being meaningful. You can break it down and judge how parts affect you, but that has no logical connection to the thing as a whole.
"Any plan that results in boobies is a good plan."
But the plan actually has no point. We can break out war, famine, disease; but none of these are points of a plan that exists in no framework. They cannot be goals, for without a framework there are no conditions there to give rise to them as a necessity. With no framework against which to judge them, all outcomes are equal.

A path made under no standards cannot be judged ON ITS TERMS as anything more. You can bring yourself into the picture and judge it based on how it affects you, but that's not truly judging the design of the path -- you're just judging how the result happens to correspond to you.

Not sure what this is trying to refute...

You are saying that if there is no purposeful design in a framework (Universe), then anything goes and nothing really matters because it's all arbitrary. I have no problems with this idea, though others might say that we create our own values and give birth to meaning within the arbitrary nature of things.

There's no reason to ask. The region beyond science's theoretical limits will FOREVER be dark. Illumination is IMPOSSIBLE. Why run scenarios there when differentiation between scenarios is impossible because you can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste to differentiate?

It doesn't matter what's there because it can have zero additional impact.

You'll have to convince that to the just about everybody who ever existed who has pondered the "Meaning to life".

Of course, there is a reason to ask, and since no one has figured out the answer to the question, your response is that it is an impossible question to answer, therefore it is not a worthwhile question to ask.

That would work, if we were robots or something. But humans can't help but be curious and ask anyway.

 

[Tweak155]

You don't get it, if what will happen is already known, then nothing but that can happen, all choices are already made before you make them, hence, no free will.

But you can give free will and choose not to know. If an intelligent designer has the capacity to provide what we have now, providing that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[MJinZ]

You don't get it, if what will happen is already known, then nothing but that can happen, all choices are already made before you make them, hence, no free will.

The thing is, what will happen is pretty much already known. It just has a bunch of variations. The chance of each variation occurring can be described by a probability distribution. And each instance creating a near infinite array of possibilities (even if each only differed by the most minute irrelevant detail).

Like, for example, I will die in the future. That's already known. The details are less clear though. :sneaky:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

But you can give free will and choose not to know. If an intelligent designer has the capacity to provide what we have now, providing that shouldn't be an issue.

Is God doesn't know, he's not omniscient, the word literally means all-knowing.

You can't have it both ways, either he is omniscient or he isn't, there is no third option to an absolute choice.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The thing is, what will happen is pretty much already known. It just has a bunch of variations. The chance of each variation occurring can be described by a probability distribution. And each instance creating a near infinite array of possibilities (even if each only differed by the most minute irrelevant detail).

Like, for example, I will die in the future. That's already known. The details are less clear though. :sneaky:

We are discussing omniscience, not "kinda know something that probably will happen at some point".

Omniscience is ALL knowing, it's knowledge beyond all protons, neutrons and electrons and all interactions of them in the universe at all times.

Either that or it's "god sometimes knows SOME stuff" and not "god is omniscient".

 

[DominionSeraph]

That isn't your scenario.

I've run through several.

You have a designer in an existing "framework" as you like to call it. If the designer was designed, we shouldn't assume the framework wasn't designed.

I ran it that way already. "Infinite regression of designers," ring a bell?

But I don't know any Fundies who hold to that, so there's no point in expanding on it.

In this instance, YOU created the scenarios of blocks bursting into other objects. In this case, you are the designer of said framework.

No, that design is within the definition of, "supernatural;" unless you consider the supernatural to be just another layer of nature.
For example, my Sims live under far more restrictions than I do. They're stuck in the computer, while I can do things outside it. I can even turn them off. Does that make me an omniscient, omnipotent, creator God?
My Sims operate under their laws. I operate under mine. If God operates under his... then God really ain't anything special, eh? Just a bloke getting by in his universe.

 

[MJinZ]

I've run through several.



I ran it that way already. "Infinite regression of designers," ring a bell?

But I don't know any Fundies who hold to that, so there's no point in expanding on it.



No, that design is within the definition of, "supernatural;" unless you consider the supernatural to be just another layer of nature.
For example, my Sims live under far more restrictions than I do. They're stuck in the computer, while I can do things outside it. I can even turn them off. Does that make me an omniscient, omnipotent, creator God?
My Sims operate under their laws. I operate under mine. If God operates under his... then God really ain't anything special, eh? Just a bloke getting by in his universe.

What if the framework itself IS god. A form of existence unimaginable and unfathomable by our mental limits. A self aware Universe and we are just the white and red blood cells inside of its body doing our thang. So awesome that it both created itself and destroys itself from nothingness. So powerful that even its constituents (us) eventually becomes self-aware.

 

[02ranger]

removed -DrPizza

 

[02ranger]

I'm not sure about that. In the Bible God is at the very least Inconsistent and afraid of Iron Chariots.

What do you mean afraid of iron chariots? I don't know if you're just being random or if you have a specific reason for saying that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Not if he's omniscient.

I include omniscient as a subset of omnipotent. How could a god be all powerfull if he's not all knowing too?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What do you mean afraid of iron chariots? I don't know if you're just being random or if you have a specific reason for saying that.

It's from a verse in the bible and was, afaik, intended as humor/sarcasm on sandorski's part.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

OK, I'm convinced. That HAD to be designed. And I love the designer for it. hahahaha

Those were designed, by a French doctor.

Her face and the rest of her body wasn't and that shows.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I include omniscient as a subset of omnipotent. How could a god be all powerfull if he's not all knowing too?

You can be all powerful and do something without knowing what you doing that will cause, of course, being all powerful you can make it so that it won't cause that after the fact, if you were all knowing, you'd know what would happen before you tried it.

Then again, knowledge is power so omniscient is equal to omnipotent, right?

The truth is that god is nothing but impotent, he knows nothing and does nothing, for evidence of that, just look at this world.

 

[MJinZ]

You can be all powerful and do something without knowing what you doing that will cause, of course, being all powerful you can make it so that it won't cause that after the fact, if you were all knowing, you'd know what would happen before you tried it.

Then again, knowledge is power so omniscient is equal to omnipotent, right?

The truth is that god is nothing but impotent, he knows nothing and does nothing, for evidence of that, just look at this world.

Well maybe the Earth doesn't care about the dustmites crawling around it? Perspective is important. When it wants to take a shower, it'll flood the surface. Or freeze everything.

 

[darkswordsman17]

There's no reason to ask. The region beyond science's theoretical limits will FOREVER be dark. Illumination is IMPOSSIBLE. Why run scenarios there when differentiation between scenarios is impossible because you can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste to differentiate?
It doesn't matter what's there because it can have zero additional impact.

Ah yes, the old, I/we don't know it right now, so it will never be known, argument.

 

[02ranger]

This thread went places I didn't really expect. I know I said earlier I'd ask for it to be locked if a debate got going, but it seems to be going pretty well and everybody's acting civilzed. It's interesting too. There's things I've read in the last 20-30 minutes that I've never thought about. Let's keep it going.

Oh, and to contribute, I have the same problems with an omniscient god that John has. If god knows everything ahead of time, then people don't have free will like the Bible says they do. If he knows all possible outcomes but leaves people to decide on their own, then it doesn't seem like he really is omniscient. If he doesn't know what course a person will take, then he's just like us, just a lot more powerful.

 

[MJinZ]

This thread went places I didn't really expect. I know I said earlier I'd ask for it to be locked if a debate got going, but it seems to be going pretty well and everybody's acting civilzed. It's interesting too. There's things I've read in the last 20-30 minutes that I've never thought about. Let's keep it going.

Oh, and to contribute, I have the same problems with an omniscient god that John has. If god knows everything ahead of time, then people don't have free will like the Bible says they do. If he knows all possible outcomes but leaves people to decide on their own, then it doesn't seem like he really is omniscient. If he doesn't know what course a person will take, then he's just like us, just a lot more powerful.

Knowing everything does not mean people do not have free will, it is simply a matter of knowing what people will choose and have chosen.

For example, someone today who knows the history of World War II does not mean that in the 1940s, Hitler did not have free will.

Knowing that 50 years in the future, I will be a grandfather or something is just understanding that I will eventually choose to well, have a child to begin with.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well maybe the Earth doesn't care about the dustmites crawling around it? Perspective is important. When it wants to take a shower, it'll flood the surface. Or freeze everything.

I'm not the philosophical kind, take that drivel to a Buddhist forum and have fun.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Knowing everything does not mean people do not have free will, it is simply a matter of knowing what people will choose and have chosen.

For example, someone today who knows the history of World War II does not mean that in the 1940s, Hitler did not have free will.

Knowing that 50 years in the future, I will be a grandfather or something is just understanding that I will eventually choose to well, have a child to begin with.

You don't get it etiher, free will is dependant on choice, if all choices are already known ahead of time you cannoth choose against what is already known, hence, you have no choice and no free will.

How people cannot get something as simple as that astounds me to this day.