Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[ding]

No, cause and effect do NOT support intelligence, just the opposite. There is no intelligence associated with gravity, there are no exceptions.


A distinction without a difference and not at all relevant to the topic.

You don't believe that rules, laws, cause and effect are proof of intelligence because you don't want to believe intelligence is behind nature. But if we were having this conversation about a computer programmer who programmed his simulation to have rules and laws and consequences (cause and effect) then you would easily see how rules, laws, cause and effect are proof of intelligence, right?

The reality though is that rules, laws and consequences are based upon logic and logic is based upon intelligence. I'm on to your game, your strategy to deny the existence of God or matrix or whatever you want to call it is to systematically deny all evidence for God or matrix or whatever you want to call it. You are sneaky bastard, Patrick.

It kinda was a distinction with a difference and truth is always relevant.

 

[ding]

So who or what is the proxy for natural laws like gravity?

Why would I need a proxy for gravity to investigate the answers to the origin question. How is that relevant to a creator or that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence or anything else related to the origin questions?

 

[alang1216]

You don't believe that rules, laws, cause and effect are proof of intelligence because you don't want to believe intelligence is behind nature. But if we were having this conversation about a computer programmer who programmed his simulation to have rules and laws and consequences (cause and effect) then you would easily see how rules, laws, cause and effect are proof of intelligence, right?

Right, and a very good analogy. If you know/presume an intelligence built the world it is easy to say the rules, etc., are proof of that intelligence. What is harder is to not know there is a computer programmer and find evidence for him.

The reality though is that rules, laws and consequences are based upon logic and logic is based upon intelligence.

Again we disagree and you repeating it over and over is not convincing. Sorry.

I'm on to your game, your strategy to deny the existence of God or matrix or whatever you want to call it is to systematically deny all evidence for God or matrix or whatever you want to call it. You are sneaky bastard, Patrick.

Patrick? Sorry I don't have your faith to assume a God and then find His logic in this universe of Rorschach images.

 

[alang1216]

Why would I need a proxy for gravity to investigate the answers to the origin question. How is that relevant to a creator or that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence or anything else related to the origin questions?

You brought up a proxy, not me.

 

[ding]

Designed is a VERY big assumption and you seem to start with that and work backwards.

That's not how I did it. I evaluated the only two options that exist; the universe was created intentionally or the universe is an accidental coincidence of happenstance. And then I evaluated the evidence at my disposal which was what was created. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral; and how space and time has evolved (cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness). Inherent to that evaluation was developing a realistic perception of God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use.

What have you done? Because I know for certain you never started with a realistic perception of God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use. Which means that whatever it is you have done - and I doubt it was ever very much - it started from a flawed position which created a self fulfilling prophecy. So it's really ironic that you would accuse me of what you did.

ur universe has produced intelligence, such as it is. Are clouds a rain producing machine? Did the rain design the clouds?

Stop being silly.

Odd that I've never encountered your perception of God from anyone else. Is there a religion out there that I'm not familiar with?

You never made a serious effort. You don't need anyone to contemplate the origin questions. You have everything you need. You just choose to not be objective.

 

[alang1216]

That's not how I did it. I evaluated the only two options that exist; the universe was created intentionally or the universe is an accidental coincidence of happenstance. And then I evaluated the evidence at my disposal which was what was created. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral; and how space and time has evolved (cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness). Inherent to that evaluation was developing a realistic perception of God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use.

So the laws of nature were created? And you know that how?

What have you done? Because I know for certain you never started with a realistic perception of God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use. Which means that whatever it is you have done - and I doubt it was ever very much - it started from a flawed position which created a self fulfilling prophecy. So it's really ironic that you would accuse me of what you did.

Wrong, my perception was spot on: no presumptions about God. I began by dismissing everything anyone had ever told me about God and started from there.

You never made a serious effort. You don't need anyone to contemplate the origin questions. You have everything you need. You just choose to not be objective.

Attacking me instead of defending yourself? Interesting. Sounds to me like you, your God, and your 'logic' are unique in the universe. Tell me again about your realistic perception of God that no one else shares.

 

[ding]

Right, and a very good analogy. If you know/presume an intelligence built the world it is easy to say the rules, etc., are proof of that intelligence. What is harder is to not know there is a computer programmer and find evidence for him.

But that's not what I did. That's what you did. You started from a self fulfilling prophecy that God doesn't exist and left it at that. You never made any serious effort at all to answer the origin questions. Your arguments are that of a 12 year old because that's when you made up your mind.

Again we disagree and you repeating it over and over is not convincing. Sorry.

It kind of is worth repeating. You believe that rules, laws and consequences are signs of intelligence if we are talking about a computer programmer but not for God or the matrix or whatever name you want to call it because you have already made up your mind that there can't be a creator, matrix or whatever name you want to call it. Furthermore you don't see the idiocy of your argument. So yeah, it's worth repeating.

Patrick? Sorry I don't have your faith to assume a God and then find His logic in this universe of Rorschach images.

Patrick is reference to a Donnal and Connal video. You keep telling yourself that but you have never made an honest effort. You are without excuse.

 

[ding]

You brought up a proxy, not me.

Yes, but you tried to turn it into a red herring. Something totally unrelated to answering the origin questions.

 

[ding]

So the laws of nature were created? And you know that how?

I don't know. What I do know is that they were in existence before the creation of space and time because the creation of space and time followed the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time. We know about the laws of nature from what was created. So why wouldn't you study the physical laws of nature if you were trying to determine if the creation of the universe was intentional or an accidental happenstance of coincidence.

Wrong, my perception was spot on: no presumptions about God. I began by dismissing everything anyone had ever told me about God and started from there.

That would carry more weight if you were able to actually say what you had done but since we both know you never made any serious effort to answer these weighty questions, I'm going to say that you never made any effort to make a realistic perception of God because your biases won't allow it. You are not objective.

Attacking me instead of defending yourself? Interesting. Sounds to me like you, your God, and your 'logic' are unique in the universe. Tell me again about your realistic perception of God that no one else shares.

I'm not attacking you. You have never made a serious effort and you know it. What effort have you made to objectively answer the origin questions?

 

[alang1216]

I don't know. What I do know is that they were in existence before the creation of space and time because the creation of space and time followed the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time. We know about the laws of nature from what was created. So why wouldn't you study the physical laws of nature if you were trying to determine if the creation of the universe was intentional or an accidental happenstance of coincidence.

That would carry more weight if you were able to actually say what you had done but since we both know you never made any serious effort to answer these weighty questions, I'm going to say that you never made any effort to make a realistic perception of God because your biases won't allow it. You are not objective.

I'm not attacking you. You have never made a serious effort and you know it. What effort have you made to objectively answer the origin questions?

After some reflection (Bourbon), I conclude we are not so far apart as I initially assumed.

I generally start this topic with my standard disclaimer, that since I don't know how the universe came to be, I'm agnostic. It may have been a Creator, it may not have, but I have no evidence either way (your 'logical' arguments are unconvincing) so I'll have to beg the question. I assume I began in this thread with this but I'm too lazy to check.

I think the confusion is your use of the term 'God', a term that connotes the Biblical God of the Israelites. I have zero belief in that being based on a lifetime of study. If by 'God' you only mean the Creator of the universe and not Yahweh, we have little difference between us. So which is it?

 

[ding]

After some reflection (Bourbon), I conclude we are not so far apart as I initially assumed.

I generally start this topic with my standard disclaimer, that since I don't know how the universe came to be, I'm agnostic. It may have been a Creator, it may not have, but I have no evidence either way (your 'logical' arguments are unconvincing) so I'll have to beg the question. I assume I began in this thread with this but I'm too lazy to check.

I think the confusion is your use of the term 'God', a term that connotes the Biblical God of the Israelites. I have zero belief in that being based on a lifetime of study. If by 'God' you only mean the Creator of the universe and not Yahweh, we have little difference between us. So which is it?

So your entire "lifetime of study" - whatever that is - is based upon opposing the God of the Bible?

You don't see the problem with that?

 

[alang1216]

So your entire "lifetime of study" - whatever that is - is based upon opposing the God of the Bible?

You don't see the problem with that?

You mean facing reality? No, I see no problem with that. I don't 'oppose' God, I just have too many reasons to believe he is myth.

Do you see a problem believing ancient, dead, ignorant, superstitious, story tellers know more about the world than you do?

 

[ding]

You mean facing reality? No, I see no problem with that. I don't 'oppose' God, I just have too many reasons to believe he is myth.

Do you see a problem believing ancient, dead, ignorant, superstitious, story tellers know more about the world than you do?

I said the God of the Bible. Not God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use. The God of the OT is what you oppose.

The only problem I see is how you could let your interpretation of the OT determine your perception of God and let that get in the way of you searching for God. That is not reality.

 

[alang1216]

I said the God of the Bible. Not God or the matrix or whatever name you want to use. The God of the OT is what you oppose.

The only problem I see is how you could let your interpretation of the OT determine your perception of God and let that get in the way of you searching for God. That is not reality.

The NT wasn't originally told by ancient, dead, ignorant, superstitious, story tellers?

You think you know me but you don't. I just finished a book on the Apostolic Fathers. Do you know which stones are not in the tower? My views on the Bible come from knowledge, not ignorance.

 

[ding]

The NT wasn't originally told by ancient, dead, ignorant, superstitious, story tellers?

You think you know me but you don't. I just finished a book on the Apostolic Fathers. Do you know which stones are not in the tower? My views on the Bible come from knowledge, not ignorance.

I don't believe either of the testaments were. You are demonstrating textbook dunning effect with beliefs like that. I expected that from Taz but I'm more than a little surprised that it's coming from you. Physiologically speaking there are no differences between man today an 10,000 years ago except we are a little taller. Don't confuse knowledge for intelligence. And don't underestimate the power of intelligence applied. They had considerably more time than you to think about these things and put considerably more effort into understanding these things than you have. In that regard you they are your superior.

I don't think I know you. I think I know your biases.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe either of the testaments were.

Believe what you wish but I'll stand by my statement.

You are demonstrating textbook dunning effect with beliefs like that.

Maybe I am. Maybe you are. Probably we both are.

Physiologically speaking there are no differences between man today an 10,000 years ago except we are a little taller. Don't confuse knowledge for intelligence.

Agreed.

And don't underestimate the power of intelligence applied. They had considerably more time than you to think about these things and put considerably more effort into understanding these things than you have. In that regard you they are your superior.

Ridiculous. They are not my superior in knowledge, not even close. I have 2,000 years of accumulated knowledge that they lacked. Don't forget the vast majority of ancient people were illiterate and generally worked 7 days a week. Only the privileged few had time to do much else.

I don't think I know you. I think I know your biases.

Do you know yours?

 

[ding]

Believe what you wish but I'll stand by my statement.


Maybe I am. Maybe you are. Probably we both are.


Agreed.


Ridiculous. They are not my superior in knowledge, not even close. I have 2,000 years of accumulated knowledge that they lacked. Don't forget the vast majority of ancient people were illiterate and generally worked 7 days a week. Only the privileged few had time to do much else.


Do you know yours?

I am intimately aware of my biases.

They were your superior in intellect, objectivity, thoughtfulness and sincerity. Good luck in producing anything which lasts 1/100 th as long as what they produced.

 

[alang1216]

They were your superior in intellect, objectivity, thoughtfulness and sincerity. Good luck in producing anything which lasts 1/100 th as long as what they produced.

Probably all true but still, they were massively ignorant, so why would anyone believe what they believed? Unless of course that person was as ignorant as they were.

 

[ding]

Probably all true but still, they were massively ignorant, so why would anyone believe what they believed? Unless of course that person was as ignorant as they were.

They knew 6,000 years before science that the universe was created from nothing and man was a product of that creation. So not so massively ignorant.

Your posts are reeking of dunning effect, bro.

 

[alang1216]

They knew 6,000 years before science that the universe was created from nothing and man was a product of that creation. So not so massively ignorant.

We're still unsure exactly what the universe was created from so in that regard they were just as ignorant as we are today. Believing man was a product of that creation is hardly a major intellectual leap. Especially since they had no clue how man came to be.

Your posts are reeking of dunning effect, bro.

Don't tell me show me. While you're at it, tell me why you think the creator of the universe is the God of the Bible. Or do you suffer from the Dunning effect yourself?