1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    30 Mar '11 22:29
    I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:

    1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.

    2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, the same way that our complex cities and internet pages weren't created by one single all-powerful entity, but was built over time by many different intelligent beings.

    3) ID is not science; it's a philosophy. It's a philophy based on science, but it isn't science, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's important to put ID in it's proper perspective, so that it's not misused or wrongly disguised as something it's not.

    4) The "designer" need not be connected with any religion; in fact, if a designer exists, it (or most likely, they) aren't connected with any existing religion.


    This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    30 Mar '11 23:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:

    1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.

    2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, ...[text shortened]... I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.
    Why do you believe the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, I'm just curious about these things.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    31 Mar '11 00:14
    Originally posted by JS357
    Why do you believe the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing, I'm just curious about these things.
    Because it would require an infinite number of coincidences, which all "just happened" to work together to create the universe.

    For example, there just happned to be a Big Bang, which just happened to create trillions and trillions of particles, which just happened to form into atoms; those atoms just so happened to be able to ALL have electron shells that just so happened to be able to bond with each other create new elements. Those new elements "just so happened" to eventually form planets, stars and solar systems which just so happen to orbit in predictable, cyclical and measurable patterns; and in this universe, life "just so happened" to be able to arise. This life "just so happened" to be able to evolve. And they "just so happened" to survive, multiple, and grow more complex over time.....and on this planet, water (the necessary ingrediant for most life) just so happened to have properties which allow it to be part of a water cycle, which includes wind and vapor to form clouds, so that it could just so happen to be able to spread around the planet....and on and on, etc., etc.

    While the intelligent correctly concludes that life evolved, I don't think any truly rational man (or woman) can conclude that it's all just one insane case of random luck on a cosmic scale.
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    31 Mar '11 00:46
    Originally posted by vivify
    Because it would require an infinite number of coincidences, which all "just happened" to work together to create the universe.

    For example, there just happned to be a Big Bang, which just happened to create trillions and trillions of particles, which just happened to form into atoms; those atoms just so happened to be able to ALL have electron shells th ...[text shortened]... n) can conclude that it's all just one insane case of random luck on a cosmic scale.
    If the coincidences didn't go the way they did, the universe would have a different history.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    31 Mar '11 01:361 edit
    Any outcome resulting in a universe that is highly structured, would be unspeakably loudacris dumb luck, if there's no ID involved.
  6. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    31 Mar '11 02:19
    Originally posted by vivify
    Any outcome resulting in a universe that is highly structured, would be unspeakably loudacris dumb luck, if there's no ID involved.
    Quite a number of recent speculations on Multiverses address this point, which is a valid one. My understanding is that they consider an infinite number of universes, all of which have varying histories and properties, some of which (an infinite number I would guess) have gone through the stages that would lead to us, or versions of us.
    Now, all this might just sound like trying to force an explanation that avoids the problem of ID, but there are observations that could be made - in theory; they haven't been made yet in practice - that could confirm the existence of other universes.
    Physicist Brian Greene has written some general works on these topics - well worth checking out.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Mar '11 04:59
    Originally posted by vivify
    Because it would require an infinite number of coincidences, which all "just happened" to work together to create the universe.
    Your argument is based on probability but you don't understand probability which leads to the flaw in your argument.

    Let me give an analogy. I throw a die 100,000 times and record the sequence of numbers. Isn't that 100,000 co-incidences? If not, why not? If it is, why should it not have 'just happened'?

    While the intelligent correctly concludes that life evolved, I don't think any truly rational man (or woman) can conclude that it's all just one insane case of random luck on a cosmic scale.
    I am a rational man, and I do think its all just one sane case of random luck on a cosmic scale. Thats what quantum mechanics is all about - nearly every event in the universe has a random component. However, at larger scales, structure becomes apparent because at larger scales certain things are inevitable regardless of the randomness of the input - because of the laws of physics. For example you imply that star formation is random, when in reality it is inevitable due to gravity. The exact star we get, is random, but the fact that we get a star is not.
    Similarly, very basic phenomena like the wave nature of light, are a result of randomness at the quantum scale that appears very orderly (refraction) at the macro scale.

    So far, your whole argument in this thread is "I don't believe anything random can ever happen because, if it did, we cannot explain why the given result happened and not some other given result". But you don't explain why you feel this way or why you feel an intelligent designer somehow solves this problem. After all, the exact same problem should apply equally to any decision the intelligent designer makes. If the intelligent designer decided to give you two hands instead of three, that is so improbable as to be impossible so you cant possibly have two hands (according to your logic).
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Mar '11 05:01
    Originally posted by amannion
    Quite a number of recent speculations on Multiverses address this point, which is a valid one. .
    I am not convinced it is a valid one. Why must every possible thing exist?
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    31 Mar '11 06:40
    Originally posted by vivify
    Any outcome resulting in a universe that is highly structured, would be unspeakably loudacris dumb luck, if there's no ID involved.
    So it's chance (dumb luck) or ID. Is it chance or ID, that there exist intelligent designers?
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    31 Mar '11 14:566 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Your argument is based on probability but you don't understand probability which leads to the flaw in your argument.

    Let me give an analogy. I throw a die 100,000 times and record the sequence of numbers. Isn't that 100,000 co-incidences? If not, why not? If it is, why should it not have 'just happened'?

    Because there's a logical difference between randomness and order. Would you believe that 100,000 consecutive die throws resulted in a rolling a six everytime? Of course not; that's because the order of 100,000 consecutive sixes is far too high to believe it's a random string of numbers, all arrived at by coincidence.

    Make sense?


    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So far, your whole argument in this thread is "I don't believe anything random can ever happen because, if it did, we cannot explain why the given result happened and not some other given result".
    [/i]

    Absolutely not. I clearly said the universe isn't "purely" a random result; that ID definately played a part in the creation of the universe. I never once even implied that nothing random can ever happen; that's just YOU putting words in my mouth.

    Certainly, random things happen; however, the EXTENT of what randomness can create, has logical limitations.
  11. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51439
    31 Mar '11 15:03
    Originally posted by vivify
    I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:

    1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.

    2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, ...[text shortened]... I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.
    Who designed the designers? Who designed the designers designers? Who designed the designers designers designers? And so on................

    If our universe can't come about because of 'chance', how did the designers come about?
  12. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69617
    31 Mar '11 15:101 edit
    Why do you consider philosophy and science separately?

    Philosophy embodies reason, logic, analysis etc. Philosophy is very strongly tied in with science.
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    31 Mar '11 15:16
    Originally posted by JS357
    So it's chance (dumb luck) or ID. Is it chance or ID, that there exist intelligent designers?
    As I already said in the post before this, random things certainly happen; that the designers would exist can also be random. But just like with the internet, or cities all across the world, the fact that existance of a designer may have been due to random chance doesn't change the fact that the designs (like cities or the internet) couldn't be random, but had to exist through ID.
  14. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    31 Mar '11 15:20
    Originally posted by lausey
    Why do you consider philosophy and science separately?

    Philosophy embodies reason, logic, analysis etc. Philosophy is very strongly tied in with science.
    You are correct, that science and philosophy have ties to each other; however, it still doesn't make them the same. Science is based on empiracle fact, while philosphy deals with things we can't know for sure, such as morality. What's moral is a philosophical topic; it's certainly not scientific in the least.
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    31 Mar '11 15:301 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    I am a firm believer in ID. But this is how ID should be properly aproached:

    1) ID need not contradict evolution one bit: evolution could simply have been the mechanism through which life today as we know it was brought about.

    2) The "designer" need not be just one entity. In fact, if ID is correct, it is more likely that there were many designers, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance.
    “....It's a philosophy based on science, ...”

    that's a contradiction with the meaning you are giving to “philosophy” in this context . One cannot be rationally based on the other.

    “...This said, I do believe that the universe couldn't have happened completely through chance. ..”

    actually, nobody who has fully understood the science of modern-day cosmology would claim it “happened completely through chance” -science doesn't say it happen by “chance” because there is no particular scientific reason to think that it couldn't have been 'inevitable'.
Back to Top