Question about intelligent design theory

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's an antiquated thought and advances in science tells us that is logically unsound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Free_will_as_a_combination_of_chance_and_determination

Nothing on that page addresses the consequences of the existence of an omniscient being, so it is absolutely irrelevant to the point I've made. I can only conclude that did not grasp the point, and suggest that you ruminate on it additionally.

This is coherent when you suspend your disbelief in a magical being like a Seer or something Omniscient.

No, it isn't, but in any case I'm speaking precisely about the case where an allegedly omniscient being exists.

It's not likely, of course, but ironically, what you believe here may actually translate into an argument FOR free will.

You either believe in the possibility of an Omniscient God (unlikely) or something indeterminate (Choice!). You can not believe in both (Right right?). So which do you believe in? By believing in determinism, you open yourself up to the possibility of an Omniscient being, not that I'm saying you believe in one. By disbelieving an Omniscient God, logically, that also opens up the possibility of Free Will.

Though you don't believe in either, which is logically fine too.

Yeah, now you're talking about something else entirely. Please take your Ritalin and re-focus on the arguments that I actually make.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Uh, Cerpin is discussing Choice/Illusion of Choice here.

No, I'm not. I'm discussing the consequences of the existence of an omniscient being.

I've already argued that a hypothetical omniscient God (that can not be wrong) is theoretically COMPATIBLE with choice.

Which is false.

Cerpin is arguing that the two can not be compatible (or incoherent), which I already explained is coherent given the thought experiment (through suspension of disbelief, as I've already explained), and I further point out the logical exclusions of the two beliefs if he in fact believes they are incompatible.

Asserting that something is coherent is not the same as showing it to be.

Is this too much for you to handle?

Look, you're obviously out of your depth. If you can't adequately grapple with the issues presented to you, I suggest you go back to sitting on the sidelines.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is a thought experiment. You have to assume both conditions are true, because the experiment dictates it.

That's fucking rich!! Somebody shows that your two premises are contradictory, and your only response is that they cannot be because they were supposed to be assumed true? Do you not understand how reductio ad absurdum works? Shit, I could prove that circles have corners if that line of argument actually worked.

And one shared universal set timeline (we're not arguing time here), which I should point out is necessary because we are not talking about hypothetical futures, but absolute past, present, and future. The point is that even if the Seer could absolutely read the future, if he remains independent of it, the choice remains Sally's.

Of course, the difficulty in reconciling the two leads to some conclusions - obviously - such as the disbelief in an omniscient being.

Dude, just STFU. You're are making this whole forum dumber.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Let's use a simple analogy.

When my son was a child he loved jello and hated green leafy vegetables. If I put a bowl of jello and a bowl of spinich in front of him, I know for a fact that he would chose jello. My foreknowledge of what he would chose did not restrict his choice in any way. My son was free to make a choice and my knowing the choice had no effect upon him when he made it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Let's use a simple analogy.

When my son was a child he loved jello and hated green leafy vegetables. If I put a bowl of jello and a bowl of spinich in front of him, I know for a fact that he would chose jello. My foreknowledge of what he would chose did not restrict his choice in any way. My son was free to make a choice and my knowing the choice had no effect upon him when he made it.

That is an awesome story, you should write a book about it.

Next up, he knew what you wanted him to choose so he chose that and that somehow proves that god is omnipotent.

I'm sorry that i got ahead of the story and that you are too retarded to understand that while he might choose something because you know he will choose it because he knows you want him to chose that it doesn't mean shit, he still has a choice, he CAN choose the jello and you'd be wrong.

You are not god, for a child, mother is the word for god, no matter what you indoctrinate him to believe.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Gold = value due to meaning (shiny and rare and properties).

Gold= value due to correspondence with inner values.

DNA construction = meaningful but without an independent appraiser, value does not come into the equation... at all.

There is nothing meaningful about DNA on its own.
It codes for information, but without an appraiser that information means nothing. It still has effects, but without a valuer, those effects are meaningless.
Existence is the same as nonexistence without someone to assign a value to the difference. The informational content of the universe might as well be zero. Or anything. It just doesn't matter.

A result does not imply a meaningful result. If there's no one around to care, no result has any more meaning than any other possibility.

The word "value" is predicated on finiteness and concreteness, even usefulness. Meaning does not.

Information is not. Meaning is.

The entropy and enthalpy of the Universe would beg to differ. Whether you understand Chaos and Order as meaningful aspects of Physics is irrelevant, of which is apparent that you do not. Neither can particularly be prescribed a "value".

Are they concepts with informational content? Yes.
Does this content have VALUE? To some people, yes.

Information + value = meaningful information

Wow, look at that.

Whether you exist to ponder the significance does not affect the meaning (hidden or otherwise) of these mechanisms in our Physical Universe.

The concepts mean nothing to a nonexistent person. He cannot conceptualize them.

I posted this before on this thread and I'll post it again.

" Point source progression seems to create a conundrum - can an original design be inherently meaningful?

Infinite and cyclical progression should and can not be categorically dismissed just because it is both a difficult and enormous concept to grasp. In fact, in consideration of huge expanses of time, both relative and absolute, there is no reason why one should dismiss it. "

You are approaching the issue here linearly - A to Z. Consider the problem cyclical, within an infinite dimension.

What cycle? Define the parameters. And are we cycling in time or imaginary time?

Can an arbitrary level recreate itself in a non-arbitrary way?

It could potentially destroy itself, but it cannot recreate itself through a non-arbitrary process.
For it to act non-arbitrarily contradicts that it is arbitrary.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

That is an awesome story, you should write a book about it.

Next up, he knew what you wanted him to choose so he chose that and that somehow proves that god is omnipotent.

I'm sorry that i got ahead of the story and that you are too retarded to understand that while he might choose something because you know he will choose it because he knows you want him to chose that it doesn't mean shit, he still has a choice, he CAN choose the jello and you'd be wrong.

You are not god, for a child, mother is the word for god, no matter what you indoctrinate him to believe.

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else.

No matter what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

 

[02ranger]

I am not in your general area, you can choose to hit any key on your keyboard and my knowledge is absolut, it will be j.

Now, either my knowledge isn't absolute (i'm not omnipotent) or i am and that is the only key you can possibly push.

You can't have it both ways, either god is omniscient and that means absolutes, that is, you cannot choose what he does not know you will choose, or he isn't.

I don't get how that is about perspective, what is known is always known to be true by god and he cannot ever be wrong, so you cannot choose what he doesn't know you'll choose, how is that choice.

It's like asking what the difference between a this hand.

And yeah... lol, mostly because everyone got bored with phillipines whoopsie or whatever her name is.

The reason I said it had to do with perspective was because from our perspective we have free will, but from god's we don't. Again, it's like the civil war thing. We have free will right now, but god knows how we will use that free will and thus is ominscient for it. I think I understand what you're saying though.

Again, I'm no physicist, I don't even really have any understanding of physics, so I'm way out of my league here. Just muddling through trying to give my opinions. If I'm missing some basic concept or something like that, please let me know. I'm open to new ideas and learning. Unlike a lot of people on this board and in the world, I'm open to the possibility that I can be wrong. I even expect to be wrong sometimes, especially when delving into topics so far over my head.

Oh, and speak of the devil. Phinny is back.

 

[MJinZ]

That's fucking rich!! Somebody shows that your two premises are contradictory, and your only response is that they cannot be because they were supposed to be assumed true? Do you not understand how reductio ad absurdum works? Shit, I could prove that circles have corners if that line of argument actually worked.

Dude, just STFU. You're are making this whole forum dumber.

I didn't bother to expand on the issue of because, well, it is apparently quite a bit above the level here, but here's some more reading material.

Here is some bits for you to STFU and digest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#Randomness_versus_unpredictability

I'll break it down for you simpletons:

1) Singular Random event= Fact

2) Hypothesize Existence of Omniscient being

3) Sally performs her sweater choice using #1 operating under existence of #2

Conclusion:

Utilizing Randomness to disprove determinism does not logically invalidate a hypothetical Omniscient being because a singular Random event remains mechanistically 100% random at that point of time under the framework of a single set timeline (this assumes one continuous linear progression of time).

The point is that free will/free choice is independent of a theoretical Omniscient Seer or Being, whether one exists or not - contrary to what JohnofSheffield claims.

Put another way - the existence of an Omniscient God has no bearing on humanity's free will or determinism in the Universe. Just because Free Will/Choice is likely true however, does not mean an Omniscient God exists... in fact it is additional evidence against one at all.

At the same time, I have given my arguments against determinism.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else.

No matter what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

So you are saying that god isn't omniscient then?

You are saying that the Bible is wrong?

 

[MJinZ]

There is nothing meaningful about DNA on its own.
It codes for information, but without an appraiser that information means nothing. It still has effects, but without a valuer, those effects are meaningless.
Existence is the same as nonexistence without someone to assign a value to the difference. The informational content of the universe might as well be zero. Or anything. It just doesn't matter.

DNA codes for Animals.
Kittens exist vs non-existence.
DNA is meaningful, as Animals exist, whether or not there is anything to assign a value to them.

The existence of kittens is not the same as the nonexistence of kittens. Obviously.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The reason I said it had to do with perspective was because from our perspective we have free will, but from god's we don't.

God is not restricted by time as we are; the future exists for God even as the present does. Again, our ability to choose is not altered or lessened by God existing in the future and knowing what we will freely choose.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

So you are saying that god isn't omniscient then?

You are saying that the Bible is wrong?

Of course He's omniscient. Why did you think I thought otherwise?

 

[DominionSeraph]

What if we actually have the ability to choose, but god still knows what we're going to choose. Maybe he is outside of time, outside of the normal rules of the universe. He knows what we'll choose but only because he's able to know all things all the time. We still have the ability to choose whatever we want. For instance, writing this post. God knows I'm going to write it, knows exactly what I'm writing, and even how everybody will respond. However, I still had the choice of whether or not to write it.

No, you wouldn't.

Watch this:

I just ate a plate of spaghetti. I know I did -- I see the plate right in front of me. Can I change that? No. I cannot go back and change what I did.

What if I could? What if I could, right now, change what I chose to eat and and instead choose to have eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
Then did I eat a plate of spaghetti or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? It could be either, depending on what I STILL might choose. I could go back and forth for the rest of my life changing what I ate on October 2nd, 2010. I would NEVER have true knowledge of what I ate because the truth never gets set.

See? Choice undermines knowledge.
As long as you can choose, you do not know.
If you know, it can only be because you can no longer choose.

 

[MJinZ]

No, you wouldn't.

Watch this:

I just ate a plate of spaghetti. I know I did -- I see the plate right in front of me. Can I change that? No. I cannot go back and change what I did.

What if I could? What if I could, right now, change what I chose to eat and and instead choose to have eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
Then did I eat a plate of spaghetti or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? It could be either, depending on what I STILL might choose. I could go back and forth for the rest of my life changing what I ate on October 2nd, 2010. I would NEVER have true knowledge of what I ate because the truth never gets set.

See? Choice undermines knowledge.
As long as you can choose, you do not know.
If you know, it can only be because you can no longer choose.

You just proved that you can't travel back in time. Congrats.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else.

Yes it does.

"God knows with certainty that you will do X."
What is the probability of X? 1.0.
What is the probability of not X? 0.0.

That means you can't do "not X."

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The reason I said it had to do with perspective was because from our perspective we have free will, but from god's we don't. Again, it's like the civil war thing. We have free will right now, but god knows how we will use that free will and thus is ominscient for it. I think I understand what you're saying though.

Again, I'm no physicist, I don't even really have any understanding of physics, so I'm way out of my league here. Just muddling through trying to give my opinions. If I'm missing some basic concept or something like that, please let me know. I'm open to new ideas and learning. Unlike a lot of people on this board and in the world, I'm open to the possibility that I can be wrong. I even expect to be wrong sometimes, especially when delving into topics so far over my head.

Oh, and speak of the devil. Phinny is back.

You're still not getting it, god is OMNISCIENT, he knows every proton, electoron and neutron in the univers and their exact interactions at all time, he knows that you would type these exact letters on this exact forum since before the universe was even created, you have never chosen to respond to me, you could not choose NOT to respond to me or anything that ever led up to this point in time where you did, because if ANYTHING would differ, god would be wrong and god cannot be wrong.

See, it's that complicated, since the beginning of your family history he has known exactly what protons, electrons and neutrons would produce the spermie that would meet the exact protons, electrons and neutrons that make up the egg of every ancestor since the beginning of RNA in the primordial ... oh wait, since he made that man out of mud and that woman out of a rib.

It's not your choice at any step of the way, because if it had gone differently with any action at any part from then to you writing the exact words on the internet (and lets not start with what he had to know to even get you to write on the internet) he would have been wrong.

So all of this, every action of every man down to our cells, down to molecules, atoms and the parts of atoms and the parts of the parts of atoms, god always knew exactly how all this would play out and if it didn't, god would be wrong... so did you have a choice?

 

[DominionSeraph]

You just proved that you can't travel back in time. Congrats.

What applies to the past applies to the future when it is given the same qualities. Like that of being knowable.

If you can't travel back in time to change the past, as you're travelling forward in time you cannot change the future. Not if it's set so as to be knowable.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Of course He's omniscient. Why did you think I thought otherwise?

So when the time of the universe began, he knew that i would write this response to you and you think i have a choice in doing so?

What if i didn't? Could i NOT have done so, that would make what god knows wrong, wouldn't it?

Can god be wrong?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let's use a simple analogy.

When my son was a child he loved jello and hated green leafy vegetables. If I put a bowl of jello and a bowl of spinich in front of him, I know for a fact that he would chose jello. My foreknowledge of what he would chose did not restrict his choice in any way. My son was free to make a choice and my knowing the choice had no effect upon him when he made it.

You're not omniscient. Analogy failed.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You just proved that you can't travel back in time. Congrats.

But god is in the future and knows the past before it becomes future.

So there is no choice involved, the past is unchangable to a god that extends to all future.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You're still not getting it, god is OMNISCIENT, he knows every proton, electoron and neutron in the univers and their exact interactions at all time, he knows that you would type these exact letters on this exact forum since before the universe was even created, you have never chosen to respond to me, you could not choose NOT to respond to me or anything that ever led up to this point in time where you did, because if ANYTHING would differ, god would be wrong and god cannot be wrong.

See, it's that complicated, since the beginning of your family history he has known exactly what protons, electrons and neutrons would produce the spermie that would meet the exact protons, electrons and neutrons that make up the egg of every ancestor since the beginning of RNA in the primordial ... oh wait, since he made that man out of mud and that woman out of a rib.

It's not your choice at any step of the way, because if it had gone differently with any action at any part from then to you writing the exact words on the internet (and lets not start with what he had to know to even get you to write on the internet) he would have been wrong.

So all of this, every action of every man down to our cells, down to molecules, atoms and the parts of atoms and the parts of the parts of atoms, god always knew exactly how all this would play out and if it didn't, god would be wrong... so did you have a choice?

God is omniscient and I do have free choice. I don't see any conflict at all.

 

[MJinZ]

Yes it does.

"God knows with certainty that you will do X."
What is the probability of X? 1.0.
What is the probability of not X? 0.0.

That means you can't do "not X."

In a set timeline, nothing can be changed. Every event is probability of 100%, every non-event is a probability of 0%.

That has no bearing with each individual event. If this theoretical God rolled a random dice 100 times, he would know the results, but that does not mean the dice were not, are not, and will not continue to be random.

 

[MJinZ]

But god is in the future and knows the past before it becomes future.

So there is no choice involved, the past is unchangable to a god that extends to all future.

Why would God be in the future? That's a pretty crappy God. I assumed a theoretical God exists outside of the human concept of Time?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why would God be in the future? That's a pretty crappy God. I assumed a theoretical God exists outside of the human concept of Time?

Are you playing daft for the sake of argument or are you daft?

Do you not realise what omniscient means? that means that god knows all past present and future, so if future is known to god, all is past known time.

I *REALLY* cannot make this any simpler for you.