Political Crossfire Forums

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4382

In all this debate over intelligent design it occurs to me that intelligent design need not mean superior design.
The human race in it's present form has only been around a few hundred thousand years. We've only been storing and transferring significant amounts of information for a few hundred. Yet, you don't need to be a genius today to perform feats that even Socrates might suspect were supernatural.
Now imagine technology and information accumulation over millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of years. We will soon (cosmologically speaking) be able to produce and replicate solid objects out of "thin air". Who's to say a race of similar intellect that has been around for 3 billion years couldn't produce an entire universe?
An individual member of such a race need not be any smarter than the average human. I can sit here on the internet and gather and share information with people all over the globe in a matter of seconds, not because I'm a supernatural supergenius, but because a great number of intelligent individuals expanded on knowledge passed on to them over time and made the results available to me.
You can't scientifically exclude the possibility of intelligent design, but I think you can logically dispense with the notion that an intelligent designer(s) must also be all knowing, all wise, benevolent, all powerful, or anything other than better informed and/or equipped than we are.

WhatOthersMiss · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 6

So, in essence, is this an argument that we could have been created by another species, or that the "divine Creator" is not so omniscient and omnipotent after all? Either way, it raises some interesting debate points. For one, where did the not-so-intelligent creator come from? Surely he was created at some point, or evolved, or however you wish to look at it. You can keep up the chain of creations, but at some point there must have been some event or Being that caused the universe to come into corporeal reality.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4382

WhatOthersMiss wrote: So, in essence, is this an argument that we could have been created by another species, or that the "divine Creator" is not so omniscient and omnipotent after all? Either way, it raises some interesting debate points. For one, where did the not-so-intelligent creator come from? Surely he was created at some point, or evolved, or however you wish to look at it. You can keep up the chain of creations, but at some point there must have been some event or Being that caused the universe to come into corporeal reality.

I'm not making the case for or against intelligent design. But the intelligent design scenerio does not necessitate an omnipotent, all wise, immortal, benevolent designer.

If our universe was a consequence of the action of an intelligent being, that does mean that our universe is only a part of a much larger whole. Then you get into the question of where that came from and on, and on. We are by nature, not comfortable with mysteries for which there appears to be no solution, but it's there nonetheless.

Where did the initial stuff of the universe come from, the energy? What was the cause of the initial reaction? Where did the cause come from? Did time exist 5 minutes before the Big Bang? If not there cannot be a point in time when it happened. For something to come into existance there must first be a condition of nonexistance. This means there must be a "time" when the thing didn't exist, a before. But if there is no time, how can there be a before?

TheWeeklyDebacle · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 103

Eduffy80911 wrote: WhatOthersMiss wrote: So, in essence, is this an argument that we could have been created by another species, or that the "divine Creator" is not so omniscient and omnipotent after all? Either way, it raises some interesting debate points. For one, where did the not-so-intelligent creator come from? Surely he was created at some point, or evolved, or however you wish to look at it. You can keep up the chain of creations, but at some point there must have been some event or Being that caused the universe to come into corporeal reality.

I'm not making the case for or against intelligent design. But the intelligent design scenerio does not necessitate an omnipotent, all wise, immortal, benevolent designer.

If our universe was a consequence of the action of an intelligent being, that does mean that our universe is only a part of a much larger whole. Then you get into the question of where that came from and on, and on. We are by nature, not comfortable with mysteries for which there appears to be no solution, but it's there nonetheless.

Where did the initial stuff of the universe come from, the energy? What was the cause of the initial reaction? Where did the cause come from? Did time exist 5 minutes before the Big Bang? If not there cannot be a point in time when it happened. For something to come into existance there must first be a condition of nonexistance. This means there must be a "time" when the thing didn't exist, a before. But if there is no time, how can there be a before?

I disagree that it is necessarily true that "for something to come into existence there must first be a condition of nonexistence." We, as human beings, might not be able to comprehend such a thing but it may in fact have happened. Just because we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Interestingly, the film 2001: A Space Odyssey touches on this idea of another species of beings from another planet having laid the foundations of human evolution and intelligence. I think it's an interesting idea in theory. However, one must look at who has created and supported this theory and the religious agenda they have.

Intelligent design as a scientific theory is baseless as it relies on a certain degree of faith, in that you cannot test it by experiment and it does not generate new hypotheses or predictions.

patsy85 · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 6

TheWeeklyDebacle wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: WhatOthersMiss wrote: So, in essence, is this an argument that we could have been created by another species, or that the "divine Creator" is not so omniscient and omnipotent after all? Either way, it raises some interesting debate points. For one, where did the not-so-intelligent creator come from? Surely he was created at some point, or evolved, or however you wish to look at it. You can keep up the chain of creations, but at some point there must have been some event or Being that caused the universe to come into corporeal reality.

I'm not making the case for or against intelligent design. But the intelligent design scenerio does not necessitate an omnipotent, all wise, immortal, benevolent designer.

If our universe was a consequence of the action of an intelligent being, that does mean that our universe is only a part of a much larger whole. Then you get into the question of where that came from and on, and on. We are by nature, not comfortable with mysteries for which there appears to be no solution, but it's there nonetheless.

Where did the initial stuff of the universe come from, the energy? What was the cause of the initial reaction? Where did the cause come from? Did time exist 5 minutes before the Big Bang? If not there cannot be a point in time when it happened. For something to come into existance there must first be a condition of nonexistance. This means there must be a "time" when the thing didn't exist, a before. But if there is no time, how can there be a before?

I disagree that it is necessarily true that "for something to come into existence there must first be a condition of nonexistence." We, as human beings, might not be able to comprehend such a thing but it may in fact have happened. Just because we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Interestingly, the film 2001: A Space Odyssey touches on this idea of another species of beings from another planet having laid the foundations of human evolution and intelligence. I think it's an interesting idea in theory. However, one must look at who has created and supported this theory and the religious agenda they have.

Intelligent design as a scientific theory is baseless as it relies on a certain degree of faith, in that you cannot test it by experiment and it does not generate new hypotheses or predictions.

It is only baseless in the "pure" science. The main point of ID is to establish that pure science is not capable of explaining origins of life. For alot of the ID proponents, the only seperation from orthodox evolution is the rejection abiogenesis naturalistically. They aren't trying to present a positive claim to be tested, they are presenting the case that a positive explaination is not posible naturalistically. So in the pure sense of naturalistic science ID fails, but does its point that abiogenesis is impossible without a transcendant being? I am not so sure.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Several problems here.

!st any creator who has created anything that has lasted as long as this Universe appears to have lasted would of necessity be omniscient as regards what he created.

2nd What you create you can at will break so such a creator would be of necessity omnipotent as regards his creation

3rd Any such creator must be able to view his creation at any point from any angle and to make repairs if any are needed upon that creation.

4th, at least as regards the Christian God, His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are not established by His creation but rather by His statements that he is both just and perfect.

mattwa33193 · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Miami

garyd wrote: Several problems here.

!st any creator who has created anything that has lasted as long as this Universe appears to have lasted would of necessity be omniscient as regards what he created.

2nd What you create you can at will break so such a creator would be of necessity omnipotent as regards his creation

3rd Any such creator must be able to view his creation at any point from any angle and to make repairs if any are needed upon that creation.

4th, at least as regards the Christian God, His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are not established by His creation but rather by His statements that he is both just and perfect.

I am trying very hard to find a true statement in what you said. It's a lot of work.

Any creator who has created anything that has lasted as long as this Universe appears to have lasted could very easily have dropped dead 10 minutes after he finished it, and would probably be just as susceptible to the laws of unintended consequences as anyone else. There is nothing to support your first statement.

The fact that you created something would not automatically give you the ability to destroy it. There is nothing to support your second statement.

Any creator would have to be able to view his creation from any angle and make repairs? Why? How is this a requirement?

I am just and perfect. Will you accept that on its face, without me creating a universe to prove it to you?

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

I don't no whether to laugh or cry at your illogic sir.

Name one thing you can create that you cannot destroy. And please note there is a vast difference between creating something and merely discovering that it exists.

Drop dead ten minutes latter? Given that scientist aren't even sure the universe is done yet (we seem to find particles that somehow pop in and out of existance which come to think of it would indicate that there is something beyond the confines of this univers) when do you propose to start that egg timer?

Find me an unintended consequence. To be sure socialism founders upon them.

mattwa33193 · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Miami

garyd wrote: I don't no whether to laugh or cry at your illogic sir.

Name one thing you can create that you cannot destroy. And please note there is a vast difference between creating something and merely discovering that it exists.

Drop dead ten minutes latter? Given that scientist aren't even sure the universe is done yet (we seem to find particles that somehow pop in and out of existance which come to think of it would indicate that there is something beyond the confines of this univers) when do you propose to start that egg timer?

Find me an unintended consequence. To be sure socialism founders upon them.

I don't have to name something that we can create but not destroy. Since we can't actually "create" or "destroy" anything of a physical nature, only rearrange what already exists, that is a moot question. That does not change the fact that your assertion that if someone is capable of creating something they must be capable of destroying it has absolutely no foundation in logic - it actually points out that it can't have a foundation in logic, since it can't be tested. You have made an assumption.

I didn't say that the creator did drop dead. I said he might have, and that the universe could continue working just fine without him. You have made another assumption. You clearly have a hard time distinguishing between things that "make sense" and actual logic.

Unintended consequences? The objects in our solar system spent hundreds of millions of years crashing into each other before reaching their current relatively stable state. It is likely (notice I don't speak in absolutes because this is all hypothetical) that either the crashing was unintended, or the end state was unintended, or the creator would have just created our solar system with everything in its current orbits.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Last to first. And you believe the occurrences are unintended precisely why? Because you can conceive of a plan that is beyond your comprehension in which such heavenly collisions are not only intended but in fact necessary?

And you know that the universe could keep working just fine without its creator precisely how? Oh because it still seems to be? Maybe it is already beginning to die and we're just too far out on the periphery to notice yet. I've never yet seen a device especially one as complicated as this universe that doesn't require at least occasional tweaking. Then again if he did die a week after making it and it continued to function uninterrupted for the next 15billion years he'd have had to be at the very least omniscient as concerns it.

Now your just being willfully obtuse I can make or create a motor I can melt it down and voila the motor is destroyed because it is no longer a motor. As a machinist I created and destroyed every day.

mattwa33193 · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Miami

garyd wrote: Last to first. And you believe the occurrences are unintended precisely why? Because you can conceive of a plan that is beyond your comprehension in which such heavenly collisions are not only intended but in fact necessary?

And you know that the universe could keep working just fine without its creator precisely how? Oh because it still seems to be? Maybe it is already beginning to die and we're just too far out on the periphery to notice yet. I've never yet seen a device especially one as complicated as this universe that doesn't require at least occasional tweaking. Then again if he did die a week after making it and it continued to function uninterrupted for the next 15billion years he'd have had to be at the very least omniscient as concerns it.

Now your just being willfully obtuse I can make or create a motor I can melt it down and voila the motor is destroyed because it is no longer a motor. As a machinist I created and destroyed every day.

You have no understanding of logic whatsoever. You also show no understanding of the word omnicient. Logic requires proof. You offer only assumptions. I am offering different assumptions, and the fact that they can't be dismissed as impossible results in you being unable to offer proof.

As a machinist, you create and destroy nothing. You do not produce chunks of metal out of thin air, and you do not destroy them utterly when you are done. You take something that has already been created and change it. For mere mortals, this is referred to as creation, but we are discussing God creating the universe. This would by necessity entail creating something out of nothing, and we have no frame of reference for that because we can't do it, in fact have never even seen it done.

If you built a motor and then melted it, it would no longer be a motor but that only means that it is no longer a motor, not that it has ceased to exist.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

And you offer me only hollow words and emptiness no disproof only an inability to comprehend the truth I'm sorry sir but we are getting no where.

There is no proof I could give you that you would accept for I've given the best their is and you will not see it.

I am no Jew or moslem that believes he can compel belief by intellectual prowess or the point of a gun and I'd not have a fellow next to me in the pew who was there out of fear or because he was too poor to dream up an excuse to be somewhere else.

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

mattwa33193 · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Miami

garyd wrote: And you offer me only hollow words and emptiness no disproof only an inability to comprehend the truth I'm sorry sir but we are getting no where.

There is no proof I could give you that you would accept for I've given the best their is and you will not see it.

I am no Jew or moslem that believes he can compel belief by intellectual prowess or the point of a gun and I'd not have a fellow next to me in the pew who was there out of fear or because he was too poor to dream up an excuse to be somewhere else.

:lol:

You have given no proof. You have faith, but faith by definition is not based in logic.

I am not arguing against your faith, I congratulate you for it, but don't try to pretend it's logic.

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

The act of Creation requires a Creator. If that Creator isn't a god, how do we explain how our creators were created, themselves?

Either life came from a divine source or it developed from non-living matter. It doesn't matter how many steps are between us and that original life; if we were created by non-divine intelligence, either that non-divine intelligence was created or it evolved.

It doesn't answer the question, and it doesn't satisfy the people pushing for Creationism. It may be bad science, but it's definitely bad theology.

Darkharmony · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 11 Location: Trinidad and Tobago

Take religion out of creationism? :shock:
That's impossoble :lol:
Because at the end religon will always be there. I am non-denominational theist and I'll agree with that. What created the universe? Their has to be some ultimate creator which in and of itself has to have a beginning. The inconceivable being is God and once again religion come into play.

Clara Listensprechen · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 332

garyd wrote: Several problems here.

!st any creator who has created anything that has lasted as long as this Universe appears to have lasted would of necessity be omniscient as regards what he created.

2nd What you create you can at will break so such a creator would be of necessity omnipotent as regards his creation

3rd Any such creator must be able to view his creation at any point from any angle and to make repairs if any are needed upon that creation.

4th, at least as regards the Christian God, His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are not established by His creation but rather by His statements that he is both just and perfect.

The following piece of scripture should clear things up for you to a certainty:

Quote: And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19

A God that has no power over iron couldn't have created it.

Clara Listensprechen · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 332

garyd wrote: I don't no whether to laugh or cry at your illogic sir.

Name one thing you can create that you cannot destroy. And please note there is a vast difference between creating something and merely discovering that it exists.

Yes indeed, and to find such a thing one must look at the world of biology. Nothing you eat on your plate came from God as he originally created it. Brangus steer didn't exist in Jesus' time, nor did sweet corn or beefsteak tomatoes. Those things were created by mankind. Both F1 and F2 hybrids are easily destroyable because none of their progeny seed will produce the same type of tomato (or corn or squash or cucumber or...etc) they came from.