Intelligent Design

@doc phil,

doc;56544 wrote:

Do you need belief to have absolute knowledge?

One never has absolute knowledge. One only has sufficient or insufficient knowledge. And belief can be influenced by many things if knowledge is never absolute.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

[SIZE="3"]

Aedes;56481 wrote:

For God it's all you've got.

You mean, it's all you've got don't you? I doubt you believe that what you know is all anybody knows.

Aedes;56481 wrote:

When someone can point their finger to God and everyone else can look at it and agree, then we'll have a different standard to measure God by. Until then, all you've got is people's conceptions and understandings.

I take it when you say that only if we can all point to God and agree, you are insisting on the standard for knowing science relies on. But on what basis do you assume that the standard for knowing physical reality (which is all science reveals) is the same standard for knowing God? As I tried to demonstrate in my three part "God" thread, there has been a very devoted strain of people who claim God can only be known through developing a new consciousness skill.

Yet I think we might agree on a few things, such as, for example, the basis of "belief" in religion has little to do with developing a new consciousness skill, but often derives from tradition, scripture, and interpretations by past church authorities. We might agree too that only experience brings knowledge, and if so, then wouldn't we also agree that strong religious belief (or any kind of strong belief) about things not experienced is deluded belief?

Therefore, I say citing deluded religious belief as the only claim to knowledge of God is a biased sample fallacy.

Aedes;56481 wrote:

I've got evidence to cite if the question is ever asked. Medicine is a pragmatic field -- our job is to improve, to solve, and to prevent problems. We are guided by an evidence basis. If someone doesn't believe it, then whatever, I'll do my best to advocate for them but I can't force them.

You've got evidence only because you went to the trouble to develop the consciousness skills that would allow you to study and research the issues. If someone came along and told you they didn't believe in medicine because they don't know how to understand science, would you accept that as a legitimate reason for disbelief in medicine?

Aedes;56481 wrote:

Not imperfect. Evil.

Okay, let's examine your case for the evilness of God.

Aedes;56481 wrote:

I'm mad when I hear my grandparents talk about how religious they were before their entire families were murdered. I'm mad when I hear about how my grandmother hid in the wall saying the shema (the holiest Jewish prayer) in the Lodz ghetto the day she was sent to Auschwitz. I'm mad when I hear about how my great-grandfather, a rabbi, starved to death because the Nazis allowed so few rations that he gave all his food to his children. That's the price God asks for salvation? What is this some sadistic practical joke?

I won't bore you with the standard rebuttal that you are describing human evil, not God's. Let's try something different.

I believe I've read in various of your posts here that you assume a physicalist origin of creation, and Darwinistic evolution as the developer of life forms.

Of course, you know as well as I it isn't just Jews who've suffered and died horrible deaths; brutality characterized much of early tribal life and the first civilizations, and we've seen it persist through the ages since.

Now according your beliefs (if I understand correctly) there is no God, just physicalness and evolution; so it is physicalness and evolution that have, by your own beliefs, brought all the suffering, ignorance, and cruelty on this planet.

So for all intents and purposes, you've labeled physicalness and evolution "evil," yet your career and life are devoted to furthering those understandings. You "do my best to advocate" what you hate God for. Do you see yourself as an agent for evil?

Aedes;56481 wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I'm not that intelligent.

I am talking about what I assumed was the theme of this thread. The thread author asked if intelligent design might make sense, but after reading his entire post, it was clear by "intelligent design" he didn't mean the Christian effort to twist facts to support the Bible; instead he indicated he was simply wondering if the universe might have been conscious before Earthly creation came about, or if it might have developed as the universe unfolded.

With that in mind I ask, why must discussions of a conscious universe end in anti/pro-religion rants? Can't we discuss the possibility the universe is in a consciousness "field," for example, and that some people have managed to detect that over the centuries?

Aedes;56481 wrote:

I'm making the case that if there is a God he has not earned my belief.

That's pretty funny. Why should God "earn" your belief? If there is something that helped bring about your existence as an individual consciousness, isn't that quite enough to have done for you?

Just consider the logic of it.

Right now you exist and since you've not yet killed yourself, it seems you'd rather have been created than not. You are fine if "nature" brought everything about, including the bad. But if a universal consciousness got things rolling, it's evil?

What if what we call "God" is a beneficent force that's part of the fabric of existence. It isn't all powerful, it isn't all knowing, it just wants to help create new individual consciousnesses.

It's invested 13 billion years in creating an individuating technology called human biology. But new individual consciousness can be incredibly self-serving, and unaware of others' needs.

That's how new consciousnesses start out, but through self-evolution they can become loving, giving, and selfless. The "self-evolution" I practice, for example, is samadhi meditation or, if you prefer the Western term, union prayer. I went into the practice feeling I was all-important and not believing in a conscious universe, but now decades later I feel indescribably minute and believe the universe breathes with a vast consciousness.

This creator I'm describing knows evolution is part of all creation. Nothing can be instantly made perfect.

So in light of that interpretation, where does that put your complaints? To me it says you are singling out what is wrong, what is missing, what hasn't yet been perfected . . . and ignoring what is good, what is present, what can be perfected and, especially, that we exist with such potentials![/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

Excellent post slewth my feelings exactly but so much better described..thanks xris..

0 Replies

@click here,

Aedes wrote:

And I have yet to hear about a monotheistic religion that thinks of God as an imperfect creator.

Later, you clarify, in response to LWSweeth's posts that you mean "evil" rather than imperfect.

Either way, don't some Gnostics hold such a view with their demiurge as an imperfect, sometimes evil, creator? As I understand it, the demiurge is often understood to be Yahweh, a being that should never have come into being, and is either an imperfect or evil emition from the God-head.

Now, I'm not sure this qualifies as an imperfect or evil creator-God as the demiurge is not the God-head. How do you think this plays out?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

i have never claimed any theory as being that substantial to be conclusively proven BUT..By modern cosmology it is claimed..not by me..that the universe started with the big bang..now tell me how you can question that opinion with any sincerity.. I await unexpectedly..

We are not getting anywhere with you replying like this.

I can question that opinion just as much as you can question mine. You have yet to even provide any links at all to any source what so ever to back up your claims. How can you expect me to question something that you haven't even put forth?

1 Reply

@click here,

click here wrote:

We are not getting anywhere with you replying like this.

I can question that opinion just as much as you can question mine. You have yet to even provide any links at all to any source what so ever to back up your claims. How can you expect me to question something that you haven't even put forth?

What possible reason would i have to confirm by links something you are fully aware of.You have not even given me a proposal that you actually say you believe in for me to examine.If you are not knowledgeable enough to know the accepted creation by cosmologists how can you oppose its reasoning?Do you believe that the universe began from a singular moment in time with the Big Bang theory?.

2 Replies

@xris,

Aedes;56581 wrote:

One never has absolute knowledge. One only has sufficient or insufficient knowledge. And belief can be influenced by many things if knowledge is never absolute.

I think this fits well with Sleuth's comments.

I thought the sentiment you were conveying by "absolute knowledge" to be a level of knowing whereby one overcomes one's conditioning and decides for one's self. Kind of like "a new consciousness skill" (Sleuth). My point was that knowledge requires belief. There is no proof of anything. There are levels of confidence. One can experiment, but a scientific experiment does not prove something correct, but attempts to prove the opposite (null hypothesis) is unlikely to be correct. As such, all concepts, knowledge, etc... requires a leap of faith, even if we make attempts to make the leap smaller and smaller, the leap still exists.

So then, I guess the question is whether there is an intellectual discussion that would reduce the size of leap (perhaps to the level science or darwinism requires) required to gain knowledge of a meaningful force both present throughout the universe and at its base. Can those who believe they have visibility of such force (consciousness, god, whatever) use a logical argument to enable others to see it for themselves?

And I guess, a question for those who believe they can see such things, is it a worthwhile endeavour, is it even possible?

C

1 Reply

@doc phil,

LWSleeth wrote:

You mean, it's all you've got don't you? I doubt you believe that what you know is all anybody knows.

Whether or not what Aedes knows is all there is to know is beside the point. And I doubt he thinks he does.

Before you say that Aedes is unlike you in that his knowledge of God concepts is limited to what people have conceived,[/SIZE] perhaps you could explain where you derive knowledge of God concepts other than from what people have conceived. I would also be interested in hearing about the non-religious God concepts which you previously implied exist.

Now, Aedes is arguing that if there is a God, God has not earned his belief. LWSleeth, I do not see how you could possibly make an argument against Aedes' case. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of God, Aedes does not feel that he owes God belief. Whether or not God should have to earn one's belief is beside the point: anyone who questions faith will require something to address doubts if the person is to keep their faith.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

[SIZE="3"]

Didymos Thomas;56649 wrote:

Whether or not what Aedes knows is all there is to know is beside the point. And I doubt he thinks he does.

DT, you misrepresent what I said. I expressly said I doubted he believed that . . . read my post carefully.

However, Aedes' claim that what most people think God is "is all you've got" is based on what? His expertise on what is known? Or is it that he has limited his research to what the masses say, and then concludes that's "all you've got"?

Mass belief is well known for being less than thorough, so why would any scholar derive his opinions merely from what the masses believe? The masses have believed everything from demon possession to the Earth being flat. While we've understood much about how things work, understanding the reason for a God concept hasn't yet been grasped very deeply by those masses pouring into churches, mosques, temples, cathedrals, synagogues, etc. mostly because they were raised to do so.

Furthermore, the theme of this thread was set by the author, and that theme was NOT a discussion of God based on what the majority of religions teach. Did you read his OP? He seems to be asking if there is a way the universe could be conscious, and that there seems to evidence of intelligence in the design of creation. So the religion haters and religion believers, if you ask me, have hijacked this thread.

I ask again, why can't we have an intelligent conversation about the possibility of consciousness having been part of the evolution of our universe without all the religion haters (and believers) turning it into a soapbox for airing their grievances?

Didymos Thomas;56649 wrote:

Before you say that Aedes is unlike you in that his knowledge of God concepts is limited to what people have conceived, perhaps you could explain where you derive knowledge of God concepts other than from what people have conceived. I would also be interested in hearing about the non-religious God concepts which you previously implied exist.

Geez, you'd think a three-part thread on "God" would have been enough! Smile

I explained in detail in that thread exactly where I get my understanding.

If we combine the great insight that led to science -- that experience is the basis of knowing -- with who knows what (if anything) about the possibility of the universe being conscious, then we'd look for reliable reports of experience of a conscious universe wouldn't we? Yet every anti or pro God debater I run into is citing God concepts for discussion/debate, not God experience.

So let me refer you to my "God" thread rather than repeat what experience I believe has led to the belief the universe is conscious (I don't get to the experiential aspects until Parts 2 and 3):

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3632-god-part-2-god-epistemology.html

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3633-god-part-3-self-evolution-consciousness.html

Didymos Thomas;56649 wrote:

Now, Aedes is arguing that if there is a God, God has not earned his belief. LWSleeth, I do not see how you could possibly make an argument against Aedes' case. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of God, Aedes does not feel that he owes God belief.

I did NOT say he owes God belief! I don't think anyone "should" believe in God. I'll go further and say I don't think anyone should believe in God (or anything else) if they haven't experienced it. But to say it reflects on God because of all the stupid things done in the name of God, or the deluded beliefs some religious have about God, is just as illogical as those stupid, deluded believers.

Yet I did criticize the idea of God "earning" his belief. If he wanted to believe in God, he should find out if there is a way to experience God. If he wants to believe that exercise improves health, he should find a way to experience exercise. If he wants to believe chocolate tastes good, he should find a way to experience chocolate.

Should he expect exercise or chocolate to "earn" belief in them? Or is it that the responsibility rests with him to seek experience?

I admit I did add some sarcasm to my comments, but I can't help but feel anyone who exists and complains about it always has the option of ceasing to exist. But here they are enjoying their kids and wife and profession and friends and planet Earth while complaining about a God that can't make existence immediately perfect.

Personally I think God has done its best to give us an opportunity to exist as individual consciousnesses. We have been given a great start as consciousness, now it is up to us to perfect ourselves and make this planet a beautiful place.

Has it all been one big smooth ride for the rest of creation? Hell no! Mass extinctions, exploding volcanoes, tsunamis, Black Plague, war . . . If some sort of universal consciousness is behind creation, then it is clear it has always worked through gradual evolution.

Are we conquering diseases, learning to prevent disasters, realizing the hopelessness of war? It seems so, though often excruciatingly slowly. Are we learning how to be content as individuals? Not so much yet, that is still to come I think.

But my point is that whatever the creator is, it isn't perfect and can't perfect things instantly, just like we, as fellow consciousness (i.e., like the creator) can't perfect instantly. So I say it is a ridiculous expectation that God be perfect, all powerful and all knowing.

Didymos Thomas;56649 wrote:

Whether or not God should have to earn one's belief is beside the point: anyone who questions faith will require something to address doubts if the person is to keep their faith.

I question faith that is unjustified or blindly placed. I had total faith in the ground always being there for me until I moved to California; now I still have faith in steady ground, but not total.

I think faith has to be to the degree experience supports it. Unfortunately, religion requires faith not in experience, but in theologies dreamt up over the centuries by various thinkers. It is this delusional practice of far, far over-extending faith that, among other things about religion, turns off intelligent people like Aedes.

Yet as intelligent as some thinkers are, they can't seem to separate the God (or conscious universe) question from religion. To me it's like if a cult first laid claim to relativity, who then made such a mess of the theory, and abused so many in the name of the theory, that others come to deny the possibility of relativity. Relativity either exists or it doesn't, and the cult's antics make no difference to that existence, yet no discussion of relativity can happen without all the cult haters starting to rant.

Similarly, an innocent, potentially intelligent discussion proposed by Thysin was trashed because some of us can't get past our obsession with our own (and unrelated, no less) opinions.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

What possible reason would i have to confirm by links something you are fully aware of.You have not even given me a proposal that you actually say you believe in for me to examine.If you are not knowledgeable enough to know the accepted creation by cosmologists how can you oppose its reasoning?Do you believe that the universe began from a singular moment in time with the Big Bang theory?.

You do realize that there is more then one theory within the big bang theory? The theory doesn't just mean "boom, things move".
Many cosmologists don't even believe in time. Are you talking about

When did I ever say that I would oppose the reasoning of the Big Bang theory? Have I not, this whole time been saying that I am trying to "balance the playing field"?

No, I do not believe that the universe began the way that the big bang theory states its origin. I believe that God created the world as I have stated allready.

I am merely trying to do my best to show that your assumptions are not as grounded as you assume. You currently, it would seem, hold an atheist view of the world. So to you it is not important to know the specifics of the origin of the world, in your views, the big bang. Is it not possible that you could be wrong? Do you only assume safety because there are lots of intelligent people that also hold these views? There are also a very good many people that are Christian and themselves are very intelligent.

So there are opposing views while on both sides there are also very intelligent people.

If at death, you are right, as well as all of your 'common thinkers' what have you won? Nothing.

If at death, I am right, as well as all of my 'common thinkers' what have you lost?
Eternal happiness, essentially.

You could ofcourse say that we could both be wrong.

Nonetheless how can you hold to what you believe so dearly without even knowing why you believe what you believe?

I state that God created the world. You have done nothing to refute that claim what so ever except reference the cosmologists that you hold on to so dearly.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Kielicious wrote:

what!?

Why would I do that?

Youre showing a huge bias towards god by having him as a conclusion beforehand and finding ways to support youre assumption. Thats not the way you should be looking for knowledge and truth. Besides what youre asking is a complete non sequitor. Why dont we get back to the original issue...

I am not choosing him as a conclusion in my question merely asking if that would then be your conclusion.

Have you not stated that one of your reasons for a lack of belief in a higher power is attributed to these 'facts' of poor design??

If these 'facts' of poor design did not exist would that change your thoughts towards an ID in the least?

1 Reply

@click here,

I have not got a clue what your motives are or why you play these silly games but if you dont confront these opposing opinions with some degree of intelligent debate you are only fooling yourself..No one asked you to prove anything but by stating certain things you will or should expect to be questioned..If you believe god made the universe and all the creatures of this world in six days, i dont think i could ever convince you by logic that you are wrong.You have been too well programmed for my logic to have any effect.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

The certain images that i dismiss are the accepted faith driven ones jehovah, Allah, they fail to give me a valid reasoning for their existence.My logic dismisses them as candidates for the unknown creative force.Even if the foot prints where made by a plastic foot it does not take the intrigue of me seeing them imprinted in the sand.Evidence of a creator is still to be considered as evidence for the individual but my gut feelings keep asking why so many certainties for our existence in a chaotic universe, our odds of existing amaze me beyond comprehension.

There are plenty of valid reasons out there. I think what you are looking for, is proof. However, the truth is, is that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. You can only provide evidence (observational or historical). You say that "My logic dismisses them as candidates for the unknown creative force". In other words; you are saying that there is some kind of force out there that has the ability to create things ex nihilo (out of nothing) which we don't know of yet. It seems that you are implying that a supernatural being is not responsible for this force but rather that the natural universe. However, as far as we've observed there is nothing like that nor is there any historical evidence of such. Yet, there is historical evidence for a supreme being. So, you must not know about this evidence or you simply take it to heart that it is not credible enough. Aside from everything I've just said; you must go back and think "How did the natural universe bbring this unkown creative force into existence?". To say that this force is eternal would be to label it as God.

2 Replies

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

Yet, there is historical evidence for a supreme being. So, you must not know about this evidence or you simply take it to heart that it is not credible enough. Aside from everything I've just said; you must go back and think "How did the natural universe bbring this unkown creative force into existence?". To say that this force is eternal would be to label it as God.

I'm interested to know what historical evidence there is for the existence of a supreme being.

I also find it interesting how the word God is referred to so specifically until a new idea about 'eternal forces' comes out, after which it is quickly absorbed into the definition. Not much room for argument with that, I suppose.

To clarify: I believe there is some sort of cosmic rulebook that could loosely dictate what happens, but I don't feel that this is 'God' in modern terminology. God has too many tags that have been attached to it by humans for it not to dilute a new idea with old beliefs.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

However, Aedes' claim that what most people think God is "is all you've got" is based on what? His expertise on what is known? Or is it that he has limited his research to what the masses say, and then concludes that's "all you've got"?

Mass belief is well known for being less than thorough, so why would any scholar derive his opinions merely from what the masses believe? The masses have believed everything from demon possession to the Earth being flat. While we've understood much about how things work, understanding the reason for a God concept hasn't yet been grasped very deeply by those masses pouring into churches, mosques, temples, cathedrals, synagogues, etc. mostly because they were raised to do so.

Nowhere did he say that he was limited to "mass belief". Instead, he says he is limited to what people actually do believe about God.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Furthermore, the theme of this thread was set by the author, and that theme was NOT a discussion of God based on what the majority of religions teach. Did you read his OP? He seems to be asking if there is a way the universe could be conscious, and that there seems to evidence of intelligence in the design of creation. So the religion haters and religion believers, if you ask me, have hijacked this thread.

If you ask about the possible relationship between creation and some universal consciousness, and the issue of intelligent design (which is a theistic, religious concept meaning precisely the same thing as "creationism") then you are certain to discuss notions of God. Why? Because issues regarding God are relevant to the OP.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

I ask again, why can't we have an intelligent conversation about the possibility of consciousness having been part of the evolution of our universe without all the religion haters (and believers) turning it into a soapbox for airing their grievances?

I'm sorry you find certain members of our community to be incapable of intelligent conversation.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Geez, you'd think a three-part thread on "God" would have been enough! I explained in detail in that thread exactly where I get my understanding.

I'm sorry, but you will have to understand if people are unable to read every post on the forum, much less remember them all in detail.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Yet every anti or pro God debater I run into is citing God concepts for discussion/debate, not God experience.

Unless, of course, God concepts are derived from God experience.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

I did NOT say he owes God belief!

Yeah, I know. That's why I never claimed you did say such a thing. My point is that your debate is futile: Aedes, by saying that God has not earned his belief, implies that he believes God, if God exists, should in some way earn his belief.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

I don't think anyone "should" believe in God. I'll go further and say I don't think anyone should believe in God (or anything else) if they haven't experienced it.

Right on.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

But to say it reflects on God because of all the stupid things done in the name of God, or the deluded beliefs some religious have about God, is just as illogical as those stupid, deluded believers.

We have to be careful here: because X is done in the name of God, X reflects on God. Now, just because X is done in the name of God it does not follow that doing X is right by God, or prescribed by God, ect.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Yet I did criticize the idea of God "earning" his belief. If he wanted to believe in God, he should find out if there is a way to experience God. If he wants to believe that exercise improves health, he should find a way to experience exercise. If he wants to believe chocolate tastes good, he should find a way to experience chocolate.

I agree. But this is where we have to recognize that everyone is unique: it seems that Aedes is acutely sensitive to certain historic atrocities (and this is certainly not a negative statement), the accounts of which, when combined with his own life experience, have a unique result. Aedes says "If God exists... - so, even if God does exist, Aedes life experience is such that he believes God should earn his belief. Arguing over such a personal experience is futile.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Should he expect exercise or chocolate to "earn" belief in them? Or is it that the responsibility rests with him to seek experience?

In some ways, yes. If he tries chocolate and dislikes the flavor, chocolate may have failed to earn his belief. The same may be true of exercise. Who is to say that Aedes has not sought the experience of God?

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

I admit I did add some sarcasm to my comments, but I can't help but feel anyone who exists and complains about it always has the option of ceasing to exist. But here they are enjoying their kids and wife and profession and friends and planet Earth while complaining about a God that can't make existence immediately perfect.

Unless the person is an atheist, in which case he just doesn't care about God at all, certainly not enough to complain about some fantastical story about the nature of the universe.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Personally I think God has done its best to give us an opportunity to exist as individual consciousnesses. We have been given a great start as consciousness, now it is up to us to perfect ourselves and make this planet a beautiful place.

I could not agree more. When we ask: what does it take to be a saint? The answe is so simple. Act saintly right now, this very moment. Repeat. You know? Because we can do this, and we might replace the noun saint with bodhisattva or whatever else, we have the perfect opportunity right this very instant. Is everything precisely the way we would like things to be? No, but that's beside the point.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

But my point is that whatever the creator is, it isn't perfect and can't perfect things instantly, just like we, as fellow consciousness (i.e., like the creator) can't perfect instantly. So I say it is a ridiculous expectation that God be perfect, all powerful and all knowing.

Me, too. Then again, there are God-concepts that do not precisely follow those parameters.

[/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Yet as intelligent as some thinkers are, they can't seem to separate the God (or conscious universe) question from religion.

There may be two good reasons for this:

1) intelligent design began as creationism, and both are religious concepts, which is clear if one looks into the history of the movement. Supposedly non-religious variations have cropped up, but these supposed variations are essentially the same as creationism excepting some change in language.

2) to talk about God is to talk about religion; this does not necessarily mean organized religion or popular religion, but religion none the less.
[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

There are plenty of valid reasons out there. I think what you are looking for, is proof. However, the truth is, is that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. You can only provide evidence (observational or historical). You say that "My logic dismisses them as candidates for the unknown creative force". In other words; you are saying that there is some kind of force out there that has the ability to create things ex nihilo (out of nothing) which we don't know of yet. It seems that you are implying that a supernatural being is not responsible for this force but rather that the natural universe. However, as far as we've observed there is nothing like that nor is there any historical evidence of such. Yet, there is historical evidence for a supreme being. So, you must not know about this evidence or you simply take it to heart that it is not credible enough. Aside from everything I've just said; you must go back and think "How did the natural universe bbring this unkown creative force into existence?". To say that this force is eternal would be to label it as God.

Im not making any assumptions nor do i think ive found enough foot prints BUT there are foot prints to examine.If you find a footprint you cant help wondering what the person who made them looks like.Im just looking..

---------- Post added at 05:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 AM ----------

This thread i believe was looking at the evidence for intelligent design,as the thread title indicates, not debating what or who was the designer.We are constantly debating accepted faith driven creators. It requires a different mind set by those who are injecting their preconceived notions about a creator for this debate to serve its purpose.Intelligence has to be considered but what is intelligence? proof has to be considered but what is proof ?

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

[SIZE="3"]

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

Nowhere did he say that he was limited to "mass belief". Instead, he says he is limited to what people actually do believe about God.

Same meaning, you are quibbling. Besides, my point was that much of God "belief" stems from being exposed to religion from an early age, not from personal experience. But no matter what or why others believe, he most certainly is not limited by what or why they believe. He is a free adult, with a brain, and so he can investigate anything and anyway he wishes, just like the rest of us. I maintain my point that a scholar and genuine truth seeker doesn't limit himself to popular beliefs; it's been my experience that it is usually those looking to emotionally vent or be ignorantly opinionated who proceed that way.

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

If you ask about the possible relationship between creation and some universal consciousness, and the issue of intelligent design (which is a theistic, religious concept meaning precisely the same thing as "creationism")

You have either not read the OP, or don't care what his point was. Yes, the term "intelligent design" has been adopted by creationists (often as a disguise for teaching creationism in schools), which I mentioned in my first post in this thread.

However, it doesn't take a genius to see the OP was NOT about creationist notions. The author is using the two words neutrally, for their intrinsic meanings (and may be unaware of the term's creationist trappings), to ask if we might reflect on if intelligence has been part of the design of creation. He specifically said:

Quote:

1. I am agnostic
2. I generally disagree with how most religions are run
3. I <3 evolution
4. I am skeptical about a higher power that is conscious in the way that we humans are.
It seems to me that the existence of science, evolution, and all other such things actually strongly suggest the existence of intelligent design. If there is intelligent design then it would make sense that God came first. So, with that in mind, wouldn't science, evolution, and intelligent design all be quite compatible and able to exist simultaneously?

I also like the idea that there was the universe, natural laws, evolution first, and out of all of that evolved what we might see as God in the form of a higher conciousness.

Does that sound like creationism to you?

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

. . . then you are certain to discuss notions of God. Why? Because issues regarding God are relevant to the OP.Why? Because issues regarding God are relevant to the OP.

Nonsense. You mean "issues regarding religion" don't you? The nature of God isn't owned by religion even if they like to claim it. This is a philosophy site, and as such it seems to me a neutral discussion of the issue of a conscious universe should be possible without all the religious crap coming in every single freaking time.

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

I'm sorry, but you will have to understand if people are unable to read every post on the forum, much less remember them all in detail.

I wasn't talking about "people," I was talking about you. First you say "perhaps you could explain where you derive knowledge of God concepts other than from what people have conceived. I would also be interested in hearing about the non-religious God concepts which you previously implied exist."

And then you say, "I'm sorry, but you will have to understand if people are unable to read every post on the forum."

If you aren't going to be sincere, why bother? And here's another example where I wonder about your sincerity:

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

Yeah, I know. That's why I never claimed you did say such a thing. My point is that your debate is futile: Aedes, by saying that God has not earned his belief, implies that he believes God, if God exists, should in some way earn his belief.

Except you did claim I said it. I'd replied to you "I did NOT say he owes God belief," after you had written: "Aedes does not feel that he owes God belief." I know exactly what Aedes said, and I think I know what he wants from God (if one exists), which is the basis of my answer to him.

So why have you interjected yourself into my debate with Aedes? I don't accept that you are speaking accurately for him, only he knows how he feels and what he thinks. You believe it is futile, but I think if he posts his thoughts they are open to criticism. Let him speak for himself; or, if he doesn't answer me, the discussion is over between us on this subject. Why you've interpolated I have no idea.

Didymos Thomas;56744 wrote:

. . . to talk about God is to talk about religion; this does not necessarily mean organized religion or popular religion, but religion none the less.

Absolute baloney. I can talk to you all day about a model of creation that includes it being conscious, and not one word of religion will ever come from my lips or pen. (In fact, someone has compiled a series of links to ideas on metaparadigms of consciousness and panpsychism that includes a link to a model I presented at physicsforums.com years ago: [url]http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/1320/panpsychism_consciousness.html[/URL] )

No, it is you and others who insist on sticking religion in these discussions, and then when challenged, act like it is impossible to not do so. Is it really impossible or is it merely that some want to talk for or against religion and don't give a rat's behind what the thread author wants to discuss.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

If you cannot see an important difference between "mass belief" and "what people actually believe", then there is no point even having the discussion. That's no quibble, buddy.

0 Replies

@thysin,

Seeing as 'what people actually believe' does tend to fall into some broad catagories (in regards to a creator) then I don't really see a damning difference between it and 'mass belief' myself.

I don't find it easy to parse Lee's posts - but if his overarching point is that god need not be a god who disavows cruelty in order to be god - then I see the point. Unpleasantness does not disprove god. It makes the idea of an omnipotent omnibenevolent god harder to grasp.

One argument for god that I do not respect is that of how perfect everything is. I saw a debate recently where a rabbi suggested that if the days and nights were longer plants wouldn't be able to grow properly, and that if it were colder we would die, and that if there were less oxygen we would die, if the earth were a bit father away, if the sun were a bit larger ... and so on.

I think we are adapted to nature rather than the other way around. The world certainly is very convenient for us - but only because we are finely tuned to it. We would not be here if a multitude of variables were not exactly as they are - but just because they are doesn't mean we were meant to be.

The OP, whilst he makes a more sophisticated argument than the rabbi, seems to me to be falling into the same sort of way of thinking. He is looking from his point of view at the processes that gave rise to him (or her, for all I know) and drawing the conclusion that because these variables produced the system that they have, that it strongly suggests intelligent design with God as first cause.

I think this is the result of a product of the process - a human - looking at the process and assuming it must share qualities with the product. Humans value intelligence so much because relative to so much else we seem very bright. Even a human alive to the depth of his own ignorance would probably believe himself of more mental liveliness than a lump of rock.

But lumps of rock have had a greater lineage in the universe than a living species, and will go on to have a greater legacy. There is much more rock in the universe than there is human.

But we would probably find it absolutely absurd to conclude that the first cause of existence was, in metaphysical essence, rock-like.

It strikes me as therefore lacking in imagination, and highly egotistical, to suggest that the first cause of existence must be human-like. As intelligence seems a comparitively human trait (one which we like to think defines us, I reckon) I think we need to view it with some suspicion when applied to things we don't have any understanding or knowledge of.

I reckon that because it has become less fashionable in modern times to imagine god merely as an elderly but vital fellow sat in the clouds with a white beard and toga - instead we just like to think that he resembles us mentally. He may not have made us in his image - but he thinks like us.

That's what I reckon of intelligent design.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

I have not got a clue what your motives are or why you play these silly games but if you dont confront these opposing opinions with some degree of intelligent debate you are only fooling yourself..No one asked you to prove anything but by stating certain things you will or should expect to be questioned..If you believe god made the universe and all the creatures of this world in six days, i dont think i could ever convince you by logic that you are wrong.You have been too well programmed for my logic to have any effect.

Your logic? As long as you follow the same rules of logic that I do, (which I assume you do) then you should have no problem in presenting your case.

I have told you my motives allready.

My Motives within this thread: I am aiming to show you that your theory is not more logical then what I believe.

I have assumed a literal 6 day creation as my stance in this thread and you assume the Big Bang. You state that I should address this information that supossedly opposes my view of a 6 day creation. To all that I know of the Big Bang and its surrounding theories I have not yet come accross anything that would oppose my view. That is where I ask you to step in and provide me with data that would oppose my view. You have not done that yet. I am not here to present data to oppose your view. You are the one that was accusing creationism of being a mad hatters view. I am thus asking why you would assign creationism to the view of a mad hatter and you have yet to respond to that.

You say that my view is wrong wrong wrong and you do not say why.

It appears to me that you are the one playing the games here. I have stated my motives over and over again and asked for your input to my thoughts but again and again you divert from my response.

1 Reply

@click here,

click here wrote:

I have assumed a literal 6 day creation as my stance in this thread and you assume the Big Bang. You state that I should address this information that supossedly opposes my view of a 6 day creation. To all that I know of the Big Bang and its surrounding theories I have not yet come accross anything that would oppose my view. That is where I ask you to step in and provide me with data that would oppose my view. You have not done that yet. I am not here to present data to oppose your view. You are the one that was accusing creationism of being a mad hatters view. I am thus asking why you would assign creationism to the view of a mad hatter and you have yet to respond to that.

Why do you think all the scientific evidence for the world being older than @ 6,000 years is there if young Earth creationism is literally true?

For two quick examples:

Why does carbon dating work as it does?

Why are geologists better at guessing what sort of animals will be found in rocks of a certain type and age than theologans?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know