15d
@suzianne saidThe point of acknowledging design doesn't prove God, it proves design over a mindless process nothing more. God can only be known when we seek God and God calls, but even there we can suppress God's call, just as we can suppress evidence by refusing to acknowledge what we see to avoid philosophical ramifications evidence points to.
These are the presumptions I was talking about.
As a Christian, I happen to believe in an intelligent designer. But you'll never be able to prove it, except to yourself, if you heavily presume 'facts' into existence.
I believe the guiding hand in creation, biologically speaking, is evolution, wielded by the Creator. Evolution without God is possible, certainly, whi ...[text shortened]... od, or not God. No one will ever be able to prove God had a hand in it. This is what faith is for.
15d
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWhat “evidence” are you referring to?
just as we can suppress evidence by refusing to acknowledge what we see to avoid philosophical ramifications evidence points to.
15d
@kellyjay saidThe fundamental logical error you and Creationists generally are making is this: you confuse intelligibilty with intelligence. A thing can be intelligible (to us) without being intelligent (in-itself). You are merely projecting your own designs and metaphors (error-checking, start-stop mechanisms, etc.) into nature.
The point of acknowledging design doesn't prove God, it proves design over a mindless process nothing more. God can only be known when we seek God and God calls, but even there we can suppress God's call, just as we can suppress evidence by refusing to acknowledge what we see to avoid philosophical ramifications evidence points to.
@kellyjay saidYou managed to miss my point entirely.
The point of acknowledging design doesn't prove God, it proves design over a mindless process nothing more. God can only be known when we seek God and God calls, but even there we can suppress God's call, just as we can suppress evidence by refusing to acknowledge what we see to avoid philosophical ramifications evidence points to.
My point is that you cannot prove God OR "intelligent design" and that is BY design.
You seem determined to prove design and then ask why people don't have faith.
If something is proven, then it is fact. One cannot believe a fact by faith. It is, or it isn't. No faith involved. You want your cake, and to eat it, too.
@moonbus saidReally, I know that in order for understanding in communication to take place there needs to be an encoder, information then is transmitted, and received, than that information must be decoded, to be understood. We can look at a cave wall and know that there was a mind at work if we see either language or pictures, both of which take the material world and transcends the material in the cave giving meaning. Life and the universe are no different.
The fundamental logical error you and Creationists generally are making is this: you confuse intelligibilty with intelligence. A thing can be intelligible (to us) without being intelligent (in-itself). You are merely projecting your own designs and metaphors (error-checking, start-stop mechanisms, etc.) into nature.
Not sure why you drone on about metaphors when you don’t seem to have an issue with “natural selection” since selective choices are an activity of a mind, on top of what is described using that term goes against what we see naturally occurring. Degrading instead of becoming more functionally sustainable and complex!
A design metaphor that I use actually describes the necessary requirements for level checking and start-stop monitoring.
Even the Big Bang really doesn’t actually describe what must have started in the beginning. Explosions are chaotic and we see an elegant fine tuned universe. Explosions cast things about and then the forces in place dissipate slowing down and falling to the earth, not so our universe it maintains the balance and the expansion is constantly speeding up. Unless you can come up with a means to go from chaos to precision it had to begin with the same level of quality’s we see today.
14d
@suzianne saidAbout the duons that peer reviewed scientific article says:
You managed to miss my point entirely.
My point is that you cannot prove God OR "intelligent design" and that is BY design.
You seem determined to prove design and then ask why people don't have faith.
If something is proven, then it is fact. One cannot believe a fact by faith. It is, or it isn't. No faith involved. You want your cake, and to eat it, too.
"dual coding is nearly impossible by chance"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17511511
If it cannot come into being by chance, then it has to come into being by intelligent design.
And intelligent design proves an Intelligent Designer.
14d
1 edit
@carnivorum saidBut design isn’t proven; at not least by what you have posted in this thread.
If design is proven, then also a Designer is proven, because there is no design without a Designer.
That’s the point.
14d
4 edits
@carnivorum saidNegative on all counts.
About the duons that peer reviewed scientific article says:
"dual coding is nearly impossible by chance"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17511511
If it cannot come into being by chance, then it has to come into being by intelligent design.
And intelligent design proves an Intelligent Designer.
1. "Nearly impossible" is not impossible, just unlikely in a short period of time in a single deal of the cards. There are about 100 naturally occurring elements in the universe, and only about 20 of them compose the state of matter we call "life". Given deep time (which KJ does not accept, because he's a biblical literalist and thinks the universe is only 6,000 yrs old), every possible combination of chemical elements is not only possible, but certain. Life is the royal flush of chemistry. The universe is about 14 billion years old, and there are billions and billions and billions of galaxies. Plenty of 'shuffles' for the 'poker hand' we call "life" to have occurred, at least once.
2. "Design" is ambiguous. It can mean simply regularity, or it can mean intentional. For example, if you look a knitted quilt, you will see patterns, "designs", in the weave; these were intended, by the person who made the quilt. However, if you look at sand dunes or the surface of a bay from high above, you will probably see regular waves, a pattern, something which looks like "design". But there is no intentionality there, only the result of a mindless process.
What appears to us to be design looks the same in both cases, but only one of them has a designer.
3. "Coding" is an anthropocentric metaphor when applied to natural processes (chemicals, molecules, duons). There is no code in chemicals. There is no code in molecules. There is no code in duons. It looks like 'code' to us because we make codes ourselves and we make things intelligible to ourselves in terms we understand. But something's being intelligible (to us) does not mean that it is intelligent (in itself). You could just as well associate musical notes with duons (or with the chemicals in a cup of coffee or the electrical charges in a lightning bolt or any other process in nature), and then you'd be astounded at the "symphony of nature" but this would not prove that there must have been an Intelligent Composer. You would merely be imposing another anthropocentric metaphor on a mindless process.
4. Chance or intelligent design is a false dichotomy. This has been pointed out about 150 times in this forum in previous threads.
14d
@carnivorum saidI agree, but the argument is over mindlessness and mind, and it isn't much of an argument either. The systematic functionally complex nature of life where it has integrated systems performing various functions to keep the whole alive is not the handy work of luck and necessity on any scale of change over time.
If design is proven, then also a Designer is proven, because there is no design without a Designer.
@moonbus saidTo be factual the "nearly impossible" always has to be said in every chance of odds no matter how great, but reasonable, and likely, could it occur in so much time the odds on what needs to take place are so overwhelming it is laughable you'd still accept that over a mind simply doing the work.
Negative on all counts.
1. "Nearly impossible" is not impossible, just unlikely in a short period of time in a single deal of the cards. There are about 100 naturally occurring elements in the universe, and only about 20 of them compose the state of matter we call "life". Given deep time (which KJ does not accept, because he's a biblical literalist and thinks the univers ...[text shortened]... n is a false dichotomy. This has been pointed out about 150 times in this forum in previous threads.
I'll ask you to stop making claims about what I accept and don't unless you can quote me directly it isn't very honest to make such claims that are not true. I'd also point out that disagreeing is not proving anything either unless you can produce a counter line of reasoning, an anthropocentric metaphor is also laid at your feet with natural selection, but unlike level checking, stop-start mechanisms are taking place in life. In contrast, yours at every level is a figment of your imagination.
14d
@kellyjay saidThis is merely opinion and conjecture.
I agree, but the argument is over mindlessness and mind, and it isn't much of an argument either. The systematic functionally complex nature of life where it has integrated systems performing various functions to keep the whole alive is not the handy work of luck and necessity on any scale of change over time.
You have any evidence?
I’d love to see some.
14d
@kellyjay saidHe said you’re a biblical literalist who believes the earth is about 6,000 years old. You’ve defended that position relentlessly for years and years. If you’re now walking it back then you need to recant all your claims about literalisms in the bible and start being honest about it.
To be factual the "nearly impossible" always has to be said in every chance of odds no matter how great, but reasonable, and likely, could it occur in so much time the odds on what needs to take place are so overwhelming it is laughable you'd still accept that over a mind simply doing the work.
I'll ask you to stop making claims about what I accept and don't unless you ca ...[text shortened]... anisms are taking place in life. In contrast, yours at every level is a figment of your imagination.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4085
14d
Does the mere presence of intelligent individuals who can distinguish between intelligibility and intelligence not prove the very truth of the intelligent design concept?
I recognize that others can counter this by pointing out the presence of persons who are not intelligent, such as divegeester, leaving the matter open for more gear-grinding consideration.
Are not gears proof of intelligent design? For example, the gears of a Swiss watch, celebrated for their precision, reliability, and craftsmanship, serve as a compelling example of intelligent design for timekeeping. The intricate mechanisms within these watches, from the escapement mechanism that regulates the release of energy to the dial train that transfers energy to the watch's hands, exemplify the sophisticated engineering and artistry that goes into creating these timepieces.
Are not the physical laws which the gears are intelligently designed to govern, responsible for all the movements of the physical universe?
Evolution, by design, is a change mechanism that keeps physical matter in constant motion. However, the physical laws themselves are always fixed and absolute. Regardless of how matter changes, the physical laws remain unaltered. They are not affected by the subjects (matter) they govern. We can observe the hands of time move across the dial, but underneath, and unseen, the precision gears move them one tick at a time. Similarly, with the physical laws, we can only observe the movements they cause and govern. The intelligent design can only be deduced by any observer who possesses a keen physical eye, and an even keener mental eye.
14d
@suzianne saidDid you see me say I was proving God by the design argument? People who insist that mindless processes can produce either the complexity in life or the fine tuning of the universe are not looking at the evidence for this!
You managed to miss my point entirely.
My point is that you cannot prove God OR "intelligent design" and that is BY design.
You seem determined to prove design and then ask why people don't have faith.
If something is proven, then it is fact. One cannot believe a fact by faith. It is, or it isn't. No faith involved. You want your cake, and to eat it, too.
Exactly what is your beef with this discussion? You think that something wrong is going on because there is a discussion about the nature of reality is taking place?
Faith is a fundamental part of everyone’s life, it is not blind, if you’re of the opinion you must accept somethings without any reason that is blind faith, and not what scriptures teach.
Neither is it we must accept things inspite of all evidence showing we are wrong. Christianity is historically true, it doesn’t go against truth in science or anything other means of finding truth, but it doesn’t agree with opinions contrary to God.