• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Intelligent Design

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Geo -
no, of course not... I did not mean to suggest otherwise, only that the statement that the universe is perfect does not actually establish anything.. it is like saying the car is red because it is not any color other than red.... definitely true, but not a lot of meaning in it

Except a car can be blue.

yes, IF we qualify it as biologists do... that is as wholly unpredictable and as unrelated to effect. in our macro/newtonian world, there is no such thing as "random" in the sense of "without cause".

There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.

no, individuals CAN change form as offspring but that is not an evolution, that is merely a mutation.

I disagree. Remember evolution has no foresight. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.

most mutationss fail prior to birth, most born fail before maturity. IF that mutation benefits the mutated organism to the extent that it competes to a degree sufficient enough to make it better able to compete within the extant environment, it will be carried on into future generations.

But Geo... Isn't that evolution at work?

those carrying this particular mutation will 'separate' (there a number ways that this can occur) from the non-mutated organisms and continue to develop along separate lines producing a new species... one that cannot reproduce reproducible young with the prior population.... only then has it evolved... and it happens to a population of organisms.
But, in humans the frequency of the dominate alleles carries no logical inference for hereditary. For instance, there seems no reason to make a prediction (One which evolution should be able to demonstrate) that at some point in the future, humans will all have blonde hair, or the same blood type, or the same height, in a particular region all bearing the same environmental pressure. Even if the recessive gene rears its ugly head from time to time, evolution should predict that over time, given no change in pressure, a species should carry the same genetic disposition, with only a few exceptions. I get what you're saying, and I agree that we all evolve, however, I take great care in saying that evolution is a proven theory, at least not in humans as a population. It seems more apt at retrodictions, or as I like to refer, Monday morning quarter-backing. :)

the use of 'selection' in this context is at least a little metaphorical. pardon me as i, again, fall into defining terms. we tend to use 'select' to indicate a deliberate act - "to select a shirt to wear", but Darwin did not mean it that way. organisms are 'naturally selected', selected by nature, by their environment for fit... like gravel falling into cracks are 'selected' for size and shape. the crack is not actually 'doing' it, it is a 'passive' selection... simply a matter of fit.

I've never heard it explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos! However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO. My concept is derived from an inside out approach, accepting the basic premise that we ARE the universe, and any understanding of it, must begin there. Science, and philosophy to date has looked upon understanding systems as the observer, from the outside in. I tend to believe the answer lies from an orientation of inside out. If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent. When things don't fit in the universe we see evidence of it, so how could we know things don't fit if not for intelligence? I now ask.. Are humans intelligent? What are our limitations in understanding?

i get the idea that you are pursuing, but i don't think the dominoes line up. I think this too is a projection of 'humaness' onto the universe - we think this way because it suits us to do so.

or... We have no choice!

no, light has no purpose. most biologists would say that WE have no purpose either. we have function only subjectively (the universe will continue merrily on without us) and in the same passive sense that nature selects. to suggest that an element of a complex system is a trait of the system as a whole is erroneous.

That's a great counter argument! However may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?

here we find an important distinction. we have to be careful with conflating "purpose" and "usefulness". purpose', particularly in this context, implies objectivity, that is, we are intended for some specific end. usefulness" adn for that to be there must be an 'intender'. usefulness, though, may entirely subjective. we can be useful to each other

We need not be careful. It is what it is! We can recognize it, it is real. Usefulness is a physical application. When something is inert, or at-rest, it is not useful, it is not doing work. We only notice things that are working, so by logical extension we infer purpose based in the type of work being performed. Humans can, and do put things to work, we are purposeful in our delegation. Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.

no, i would disagree.. they are what they are TO US because of how we define them, but they are what they are existentially, in their essence regardless of us

Even so.. It does not matter. Existential or not, we are here to observe, and to describe. Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.

well, here you lose me. i cannot fathom intelligence without intent. intelligence is not a thing in itself, it is a trait OF something - a capacity, a capacity FOR and a capacity OF... obliging both a bearer and an intent.

Intelligence, for me, is a measurable degree of understanding. An ant is intelligent, like a fish, but it is not a human. ID is simply a natural extension of what we observe around us. A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.

sure... and it is that capacity in you that drew me into the discourse, which i found to be not terribly interesting before. I will tell the truth... i LOVE the idea of ID. i just cannot see any reason to buy into it

I understand that, and I respect it as well. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind when I talk about how I feel about ID, only that I have looked at the theory, maybe changed a few of the defining characteristics, and embraced the logical plausibility of it.

that notion of a core order... of an almost intelligence, by which i mean a level of ordering of which, as you suggest, human intellignece is a sort of extension, also fascinates me. If you have not read Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, i would recommend it.

Haven't read it, however, since probably 1987 I have been interested in quantum consciousness, perhaps even before it was cool to do so.. :) I believe the secret to unlocking the intelligent design enigma lies at the quantum level. It is here we need to pursue the evidence.

Tim-
 
Last edited:

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
All "natural" phenomenon have a beginning and an end. Therefore, the universe has a beginning and an end. God, by definition, has no beginning and no end. You will find no evidence of this since evidence is of "natural" nature and God is supernatural. There is no evidence of God.

Please list off all the natural phenomena, and describe how it has been shown that each has a beginning and an end.

You don't get to define things as it suits you. You must study the thing to determine it's definition. If you can't study god, then you cannot define god.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Please list off all the natural phenomena, and describe how it has been shown that each has a beginning and an end.

You don't get to define things as it suits you. You must study the thing to determine it's definition. If you can't study god, then you cannot define god.

Nonsense. All you need to do is provide a counter-example to disprove my claim. Waiting....

Of course I can define things as I like. Studying a thing may be required to define it. Since God is not a thing, this "rule" does not apply.

God is defined as the power set of all existence. Every observation is an observation of God.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Please list off all the natural phenomena, and describe how it has been shown that each has a beginning and an end.

You don't get to define things as it suits you. You must study the thing to determine it's definition. If you can't study god, then you cannot define god.

Do you personally believe the universe had no beginning? If you do not believe this, then what is the point of your criticism of reefs assertion. An assertion I might add that nearly every cosmologist, phyicist, and astrophyicists believes is most likely true! The universe indeed is thought to have a beginning, and at some point the science tells us it will one day have an end.

Tim-
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nonsense. All you need to do is provide a counter-example to disprove my claim. Waiting....
Not nonsense. I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it. I concede, for the moment, that it MIGHT be true, but contend that it MIGHT also be false. The fact that 1 or 20 or 10000000 natural phenomena have beginnings and endings does not in the least demonstrate that they all do. Concluding that it does is the logical fallacy of generalizing from the specific. You cannot logically conclude that the universe has a beginning and an end simply because all of the natural phenomena you know about do. You could illogically make that leap, if you want to, though.

Of course I can define things as I like. Studying a thing may be required to define it. Since God is not a thing, this "rule" does not apply.

God is defined as the power set of all existence. Every observation is an observation of God.

No, you can't define god as you like. Do I get to define god how I prefer, as well? Ok, then: god by definition does not exist. Your definition and my definition cannot both be true. How do we go about reconciling our contradictory definitions?
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nonsense. All you need to do is provide a counter-example to disprove my claim. Waiting....

Of course I can define things as I like. Studying a thing may be required to define it. Since God is not a thing, this "rule" does not apply.

God is defined as the power set of all existence. Every observation is an observation of God.

You just said God couldn't be defined, and then in the next sentence, defined God.. :)

Tim-
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Not nonsense. I don't have to disprove your assertion, you have to prove it. I concede, for the moment, that it MIGHT be true, but contend that it MIGHT also be false. The fact that 1 or 20 or 10000000 natural phenomena have beginnings and endings does not in the least demonstrate that they all do. Concluding that it does is the logical fallacy of generalizing from the specific. You cannot logically conclude that the universe has a beginning and an end simply because all of the natural phenomena you know about do. You could illogically make that leap, if you want to, though.

Nothing in existence has no beginning. and no end.

No, you can't define god as you like. Do I get to define god how I prefer, as well? Ok, then: god by definition does not exist. Your definition and my definition cannot both be true. How do we go about reconciling our contradictory definitions?

Your definition and my definition most certainly are both true. God does not exist. God is all of existence.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
You just said God couldn't be defined, and then in the next sentence, defined God.. :)

Tim-

No, I stated that "things" must be observed to define them. Since God is not a "thing", study of God is not required to define God. I.E. Defining God does not require the study of God. I can define God without study. And then I did.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, I stated that "things" must be observed to define them. Since God is not a "thing", study of God is not required to define God. I.E. Defining God does not require the study of God. I can define God without study. And then I did.

Huh?



Tim-
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nothing in existence has no beginning. and no end.
Again, name everything in existence, and describe how it has been shown that each of them has a beginning and an end.

Your definition and my definition most certainly are both true. God does not exist. God is all of existence.
Now that is nonsense. Two contradictory statements cannot both be logically true. If logic does not hold sway in the operation of our world, then nothing can be said about anything, and everything can be said about everything. In fact, I could simply contradict your statement that all natural phenomena have a beginning and an end, like so: No natural phenomena have a beginning nor do they have an end. If there is no logic which holds sway, then my statement about natural phenomena holds as true and as false as yours. In which case this discussion is both worthless and of infinite worth simultaneously. All concepts, facts, and arguments are entirely on shifting sands.

I don't know about you, but I am entirely uninterested in discussions which do not use logic. So let us return to it, and refrain from making contradictory statements as if they were both true.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Now that is nonsense. Two contradictory statements cannot both be logically true. If logic does not hold sway in the operation of our world, then nothing can be said about anything, and everything can be said about everything. In fact, I could simply contradict your statement that all natural phenomena have a beginning and an end, like so: No natural phenomena have a beginning nor do they have an end. If there is no logic which holds sway, then my statement about natural phenomena holds as true and as false as yours. In which case this discussion is both worthless and of infinite worth simultaneously. All concepts, facts, and arguments are entirely on shifting sands.

I don't know about you, but I am entirely uninterested in discussions which do not use logic. So let us return to it, and refrain from making contradictory statements as if they were both true.

Why are the statements that "God does not exist" and "God is all of existence" contradictory?

Have you ever heard of a koan?

God is everything and God is nothing (no-thing). God is the largest scale (all of existence) and the smallest scale (found at the limit of the resolution of "reality" - smaller than a quark, smaller than a M-brane, etc...). God is indivisible. At the most macro scale, you will find the entirety of God; at the most micro of scale, you will find the entirety of God. God exists without changing beyond the limits of space and time.

Why do you think "logic" accurately defines true "reality"? It is only limiting your awareness to the "rational". The existence of the universe is not rational. It transcends the rational.

EDIT - your example of contradicting my statement is wrong, based on evidence. Mine is not.
 
Last edited:

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why are the statements that "God does not exist" and "God is all of existence" contradictory?

Have you ever heard of a koan?

God is everything and God is nothing (no-thing). God is the largest scale (all of existence) and the smallest scale (found at the limit of the resolution of "reality" - smaller than a quark, smaller than a M-brane, etc...). God is indivisible. At the most macro scale, you will find the entirety of God; at the most micro of scale, you will find the entirety of God. God exists without changing beyond the limits of space and time.

Why do you think "logic" accurately defines true "reality"? It is only limiting your awareness to the "rational". The existence of the universe is not rational. It transcends the rational.

EDIT - your example of contradicting my statement is wrong, based on evidence. Mine is not.

God is everything, then god's some dude with a beard, Then he's a smurf with a 1,000 arms, then he's a rapist. It really becomes tiring after awhile. Can't everything just be everything? What is the point of injecting this abstract confusing philosophy into existence? Perhaps the existence of the universe is something that could easily grasped by the average human.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Perhaps the existence of the universe is something that could easily grasped by the average human.

God is.

I am.

That's true reality.

Pretty simple.
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Yes you are. And everything definitely is, and by using your definition of god, god is. But my question is, why can't everything simply be everything?

It is.

But I suppose you are under the illusion of maya and believe that the physical world is "reality". It is not.
 

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You said it yourself, everything is everything.

Then why do you have to apply the word 'god' to it, a word that refers to a supreme being? I'm truly curious as to what exactly you mean by that statement.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Then why do you have to apply the word 'god' to it, a word that refers to a supreme being? I'm truly curious as to what exactly you mean by that statement.

God is everything. Everything is God. Look at anything and you will find God. God is indivisible. Therefore, in looking at anything, say for instance a mustard seed, you will see God in his entirety. The whole universe and all of creation is in the mustard seed.

Everything is everything.

Anything is everything.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
God is everything. Everything is God. Look at anything and you will find God. God is indivisible. Therefore, in looking at anything, say for instance a mustard seed, you will see God in his entirety. The whole universe and all of creation is in the mustard seed.

Everything is everything.

Anything is everything.

Everything is actually orange Jell-o. And that's just as valid a notion as god.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
God is everything. Everything is God. Look at anything and you will find God. God is indivisible. Therefore, in looking at anything, say for instance a mustard seed, you will see God in his entirety. The whole universe and all of creation is in the mustard seed.

Everything is everything.

Anything is everything.

Reminds me of Siddhartha:

Herman Hesse said:
It is this what you mean, isn't it: that the river is everywhere at once, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the rapids, in the sea, in the mountains, everywhere at once, and that there is only the present time for it, not the shadow of the past, not the shadow of the future?
 

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
God is everything. Everything is God. Look at anything and you will find God. God is indivisible. Therefore, in looking at anything, say for instance a mustard seed, you will see God in his entirety. The whole universe and all of creation is in the mustard seed.

Everything is everything.

Anything is everything.

That just sounds like abstract philosophical nonsense, that sounds deep, but's just really confusing and doesn't really serve anyone in better understanding existence. Could you actually explain? I am holding a laptop right now. It is comprised of plastic, metal, and glass. I do not see god, I see a laptop. Could you please define god, and how this god is somehow part of all existence?
 

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Reminds me of Siddhartha:

Furthermore:

In a lecture about Siddhartha, Hesse claimed "Buddha's way to salvation has often been criticized and doubted, because it is thought to be wholly grounded in cognition. True, but it's not just intellectual cognition, not just learning and knowing, but spiritual experience that can be earned only through strict discipline in a selfless life."
 
Top Bottom