17
   

What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 03:48 pm
@Tes yeux noirs,
Tes yeux noirs wrote:

Quote:
I wonder what he would have said if you had given the more advanced answer of 'plus or minus 3'.

It did cross my mind to do so, but I had one eye on the clock (I had a date). I wonder if he might have said I had confirmed the existence of the Devil, or ant-Christ as well as God.




I think you coulda answered "two" and he still woulda said, "And you tell me there's no God!".

Bet he did it with a smile on his face. He was crafty.

Reminds me of an old joke.

A guy gets stuck in the mud just outside of an insane asylum...and try as he can, the car just settled further into the mud.

At some point, a guy (obviously an inmate just inside the fence of the asylum) says, "Look, you see that plank over there (pointing to a plank along the fence). Just put it under the tire...and move slowly forward. You'll get out."

So the guy tries it...and lo and behold...it actually works.

He gets out of the car and thanks the inmate...and sheepishly says, "Wow...you are in there and I'm out here and yet, you thought of how to get me out of the mud."

"Yeah," answers the inmate, "but I'm in here for being nuts...not for being stupid."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 03:55 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

"EveryTHING in existence is based on mathematical properties"

I doubt whether you understand that this can be considered as a vacuous tautology. "Thing-hood" starts with the human process of naming...the nominal level of measurement...counting one of...a potential member of a set. In short, no humans=no 'things'=no mathematics. On this view, unless you play the dubious game of 'man made in the image of god' , there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se...it can only suggest re-assignment of 'thinghood'.



The problem with all those philosophers you are citing, Fresco, is that they and you all start out with the assumption that HUMANS are involved with REALITY...when in fact, that is still up for grabs.

What HUMANS measure or process may not amount to more than what an ant thinks about the cosmos.

Your proclamation, "In short, no humans=no 'things'=no mathematics" may be every bit as vacuous as what you consider Anthony's vacuous tautology.

But I think I've mentioned that before.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 04:39 pm
@neologist,
You can enlarge the page on your computer.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 04:40 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
. . . there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se. . .
The suggestion that mathematical relationships cannot exist independent of human perception seems insufficient.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:30 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

fresco wrote:
. . . there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se. . .
The suggestion that mathematical relationships cannot exist independent of human perception seems insufficient.



It is not "insufficient"...it is simply a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

Humans, and their "perceptions" may not amount to flea dung in the REALITY of existence...although philosophers and their followers seem unable to acknowledge that in any meaningful way.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I was being kind.
And, in a way, I admire fresco's ability to serve word smorgasbords.
It would be nice to have some beer, though.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 01:27 am
@neologist,
The irony is that ' word smorgasborde' seasoned with a few mathematical condiments can be considered to be all that what we call 'human thought' is about! That word 'insufficient is no exception since it can merely imply a reference Godel's incompleteness theorem in which every 'system' involves at least one axiom whose 'truth' must be assumed.
NB If you were local to my philosophy group you would have been welcome to our Xmas meal in which more than a few beers were had !
As for 'ants thinking about the cosmos' that bit of anthropomorphic myopia is typical of Frank's restricted level of analysis which justifies his fence sitting.

'
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 01:54 am
@anthony1312002,
anthony1312002 wrote:

None the less, the fundamentals of mathematics cannot be ignored. Everything in existence is based on mathematical properties. This provides us with a question: Where did the numbers, the mathematical equations that make up all existing matter, come from?


I would say fresco's observations need addressing first, but while I'm here:

1. Please justify the assumption that they had to have come from somewhere.
2. If your ID angle is proposing a divine creator, then where did that divine creator come from?
3. If said divine creator didn't have to come from its own "where," then why does everything else?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 02:15 am
@anthony1312002,
For your information, here is a good reference to 'embodied cognition'.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/embodcog/
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:53 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The irony is that ' word smorgasborde' seasoned with a few mathematical condiments can be considered to be all that what we call 'human thought' is about! That word 'insufficient is no exception since it can merely imply a reference Godel's incompleteness theorem in which every 'system' involves at least one axiom whose 'truth' must be assumed.
NB If you were local to my philosophy group you would have been welcome to our Xmas meal in which more than a few beers were had !
As for 'ants thinking about the cosmos' that bit of anthropomorphic myopia is typical of Frank's restricted level of analysis which justifies his fence sitting.


I do not fence sit. Agnosticism is not fence-sitting...it is being man enough to say "I do not know" when one does not know. (Ask someone to explain that to you.)

The philosophers of the world who think human thought is necessary to REALITY in any way (such as you do)...ARE SIMPLY MAKING BLIND GUESSES ABOUT THE REALITY...although you, at least, are not man enough to acknowledge that.

No problem, Fresco...I will continue to remind you.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 08:04 am
@Frank Apisa,
Fence sitters like you equate 'not knowing' with 'not wanting to know'. They don't want to know that the meaning of words like 'reality' are de facto context dependent, and that we can never extricate ourselves from such context. That means that statements about 'guessing the nature of reality' are as vacuous as ' guessing the length of an apocryphal piece of string'.' Your nebulous view of 'reality' as some absolute apocryphal 'state of being' is equivalent to a religion with mentioning "God". But are YOU 'man enough' to admit you have boring us all to death with such rubbish for all these years because you have nothing else to say ? Are YOU man enough to recognize that your use of 'reality' constitutes just as much a 'belief system' as you have the cheek to accuse others of having ? ....or are we going to have the usual face saving denials and diversions ? My guess is the latter!






Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 08:33 am
My half-assed opinion based on a half-assed look at intelligent design is that the answer to the OP is: there's no reassessment going on.

There are people like Dembski who seek to work out a method for determining the probability of certain events, like the development of DNA, and then applying some sort of algorithm for judging an unlikely event to be one that requires intelligent intervention.

But one possibility on the cosmology table is that the universe (or multiverse.. whatever) is infinite, which means that all sorts of unlikely events will not only happen once, but multiple times. I'm assuming Dembski is assuming the universe is not infinite? What's his cosmological assessment? Anybody know?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 08:46 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Fence sitters like you equate 'not knowing' with 'not wanting to know'.


No, Fresco...I make a distinct differentiation. People like you are the ones who make that mistake.

People like you also pretend to KNOW stuff they really do not. You do not have the spine to acknowledge what you do not know.


Quote:
They don't want to know that the meaning of words like 'reality' are de facto context dependent, and that we can never extricate ourselves from such context.


Babble on. You sound like a brook...although there might be people here who are impressed with your nonsense postings.

If you want to assume REALITY is dependent on what humans are able to say about it...fine with me. Some people want to assume the moon is made of green cheese.


Quote:
That means that statements about 'guessing the nature of reality' are as vacuous as ' guessing the length of an apocryphal piece of string'.' Your nebulous view of 'reality' as some absolute apocryphal 'state of being' is equivalent to a religion with mentioning "God". But are YOU 'man enough' to admit you have boring us all to death with such rubbish for all these years because you have nothing else to say ? Are YOU man enough to recognize that your use of 'reality' constitutes just as much a 'belief system' as you have the cheek to accuse others of having ? ....or are we going to have the usual face saving denials and diversions ? My guess is the latter!


To show you I am willing to give the Devil his due...I acknowledge that I cannot come close to you in offering "face saving denials" and "diversions."

Thank you for this one, Fresco. I think you are an all-right guy no matter what most these other people think of you.

My "I do not know" comments seem to threaten you.

Actually it doesn't hurt.

Give it a try some time.

Although a warning that you are going to acknowledge you do not know something...is probably appropriate.



Hey, in case it doesn't come up later:


http://bigeventspresents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Merry-Christmas-1.jpg
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 09:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Nah...Thinking that 'threatened by' equates to 'bored to death by' is one of your face saving ploys. If you had ever risen to the challenge to discuss what is meant by 'know' (which also turns out to be relative to context and never a pseudo religious absolute), then people might take you as seriously as you take yourself.

Merry Winter Solstice !
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 10:41 am
@Tuna,
Tuna wrote:

But one possibility on the cosmology table is that the universe (or multiverse.. whatever) is infinite, which means that all sorts of unlikely events will not only happen once, but multiple times. I'm assuming Dembski is assuming the universe is not infinite? What's his cosmological assessment? Anybody know?


What he done done, Tuna, was he figured the odds of an infinite number of universes to be exactly zero, see?

But, really, what would cosmology have to do with this question? We figure probabilities alla time, without first tryna to figure out how many universes there are, eh?
anthony1312002
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 10:42 am
@FBM,
I like your approach as it involves not just making statements as a rebuttal but also asking questions which stimulate thinking.

Lets deal with question 1: The beginning of our universe is known to have sprung from one massive event (big bang). Scientists are still interested in finding out what made up this event. And what precipitated its expansion into what we now call the universe. The current consensus is that the element(s) involved in the creation of our galaxy did not always exist. Thus raises the question. Where did it come from?

Question 2 answer: A key to answering this question is to intertain the possibility of there existing a being that to which the laws of physics do not apply. These laws being made for the benefit of those things that would need them. Thus this creator would exist above and beyond the laws that govern all matter. A Bible text that conveys this thought is 1Ti 1:17 which states: "Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen."

Question 3 answer: This is pretty much covered by the answer to question 2. Being that Jehovah God is not affected by the laws he created. Then the thought of his having had a beginning would not apply.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 10:59 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Nah...Thinking that 'threatened by' equates to 'bored to death by' is one of your face saving ploys. If you had ever risen to the challenge to discuss what is meant by 'know' (which also turns out to be relative to context and never a pseudo religious absolute), then people might take you as seriously as you take yourself.


Continue to babble...by now, everyone is on to you.

And I like brooks.



Quote:
Merry Winter Solstice !



Merry Christmas back at ya, Fresco. Hope 2016 is a huge winner for you.


http://merrychristmas-2015.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Merry-Christmas-Greetings-Quotes.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:01 am
@anthony1312002,
I'm posting from my phone, so this will be concise.

1. Big Bang Theory is silent about whether or not the universe was created. It very much leaves open the possibility that it has always existed.

2. I do entertain the possibility. But we can imagine and speculate any number of gods or other fanciful explanations. Without evidence, one speculation is no better than another. The theist argument needs to show something substantial to support the claim that there is something that doesn't obey known physical laws.
Just saying it's possible doesn't answer the question as to whether or not it's true.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:06 am
The problem is, Anthony, some of these people do not even want to acknowledge the possibility of a creator or a god...

...so they have to suggest "it is possible" is valueless.

In my opinion...it is one of the most valuable perceptions made in these discussions.
anthony1312002
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Thank you Frank. Sadly that does seem to be the heart of the problem. And as we know, no amount of evidence or sound reasoning can help such people. It really is as Jesus says at John 6:44 in the first portion of the verse. He says: "no man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him,"

Yes, unless the Creator sees that a person is reasonable and teachable, he will not draw them to his son Jesus. They thus remain blind to what is shown to them.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 02:45:43