The Black Vault

Redefining Disclosure

Skip to content

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

[ Facebook comments] - NEW! Don't have a FREE Black Vault account? You can still comment using your Facebook, AOL, Hotmail or Yahoo! accounts at the bottom of the page.

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.
Post a reply


Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby humphreys » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:20 am

at1with0 wrote:I think you just stabbed yourself with your own sword here because if you allow that universe needs to be updated to be multiverse, then that establishes that updating words is not necessarily silly. One might even go as far as updating multiverse to God.


I don't have a problem with updating the meaning of words with good reason. "Universe" was updated to "multiverse" because the idea that there was more to existence than a single Universe became likely.

I would be happy to upgrade Multiverse to God if there was good reason.

What is that reason? I can think of one reason not to. The word "God" has an absolute ton of excess baggage, it would take a lot to justify using that description. Also, the standard definitions of God usually give "God" certain characteristics, like omnipotence.

at1with0 wrote:Khan has yet to prove that there is a greatest whatever. Why must there be a greatest? There's no greatest order of infinity in ZFC, after all...


The ontological argument doesn't work if there isn't, that's why :thumbup:
Last edited by humphreys on Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.
Top

Share On:

Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter Share on FriendFeed FriendFeed Share on Digg Digg Share on Delicious Delicious Share on Technorati Technorati Share on Tumblr TumblrShare on Google+ Google+

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby khanster » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:21 am

at1with0 wrote:
Khan has yet to prove that there is a greatest whatever. Why must there be a greatest? There's no greatest order of infinity in ZFC, after all...



I define maximal greatness as being "all inclusive". Per your definition of God as being the totality of all that exists then God would be all inclusive.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:29 am

Let's elaborate on the meaningful distinction that necessitates the label "God" instead of a plain old label like "everything".

Is God good, not evil? Is God intelligent, not unintelligent?

This is an open offer to anyone here who uses that label, to make a strong case for your label preference. Don't just tell what your label is. Give your reasons for preferring it.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby khanster » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:37 am

DIss0n80r wrote:.

Is God intelligent?



God must at least have the property of intelligence in the sense of passing the Turing test in order to make a meaningful difference between God as just the totality and God as the intelligent creator of all existence.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:48 am

Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God. :twisted:
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby khanster » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:50 am

DIss0n80r wrote:Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God. :twisted:


For all we know, God could be a higher dimensional scientist creating universes as an experiment.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:20 am

khanster wrote:
DIss0n80r wrote:Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God. :twisted:


For all we know, God could be a higher dimensional scientist creating universes as an experiment.


God is the totality of all simulations. :twisted:
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby khanster » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:26 am

DIss0n80r wrote:
khanster wrote:
DIss0n80r wrote:Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God. :twisted:


For all we know, God could be a higher dimensional scientist creating universes as an experiment.


God is the totality of all simulations. :twisted:


We don't need to prove existence of an ultimate God, we only need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is intelligently designed.

Free will can exist...

http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... seth-lloyd

You've said that, seen in this way, the universe itself is a vast computer. If that's so, what happens to free will?

Free will is safe. Even if the universe is completely deterministic, then we (and computers, and God knows who else) possess free will. At first, the deterministic nature of the laws of physics would seem to forbid free will: No choice is available. In fact, however, the computational nature of the universe actually guarantees free will.

Let me explain. Free will arises when we make decisions—decisions that we and we alone are responsible for. For example, every morning I decide whether to have coffee or tea. The decision is mine, and mine alone. Until I make it, I have no idea whether I will have coffee or tea. My decision process is a kind of computation: I weigh the relative merits of coffee or tea, thinking about my day ahead, and then make a decision.

But exactly because the decision process is a kind of computation, the outcome of this process is intrinsically unpredictable. Why? Because any process that involves logical reasoning is intrinsically unpredictable: The result of such a process—and my eventual decision for tea or coffee—can only be determined by going through the same reasoning process oneself. Until one has actually gone through the reasoning process of making the decision, the actual decision will be unpredictable. This verbal argument can easily be made mathematically precise by restating it in terms of mathematical logic, of the sort that computers practice.

One of the most famous results of computer science is the so-called "halting problem," which states that the result of any computation is itself impossible to compute without going through the same sequence of logical steps that the computer programmed to perform the computation undergoes. Ironically, it is exactly when we are most rational and deterministic that free will shows up.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:28 am

We don't need to prove existence of an ultimate God, we only need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is intelligently designed.


How do we do that?
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am
Top

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby greeney2 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:48 am

I see nobody has proven much since yesterday, but 6 pages of questions and refuting continued and someone returned that was leaving.

Thank You Event, for your reply to me, you cleared up some of the definition of "weak and strong" atheists from your perspective, that neither claims any proof so to speak, one just makes stronger assertions of non-existance than weak atheists do, if I understand you. From my perspective, I don't see much difference with neither having proof, by your own definition you all are weak. I also do not see that skepticism alone, always equates to some superior logic, or critical thinking.

No, I was not drinking Humphrey, but I'm close reading all this! :lol:

Lot or talk about "comprehending" others peoples concepts, which may be from lack of explanation, or just a convienant choice, which I think is usually the case when points are hard to proove, or refute. I think what I wrote to you Humphreys was a choice not to comprehend what I said. I'm not the best writer, but I think my point was made clear. Its amazing how you say you can not express a criteria for a proof that would satisfy you, but go on for 6 pages concocting all kinds of complex questions and senerios, and refuting others just as convaluted, with no problem.

Tempers are starting to escalate,and flare with each other, so lets all reel it in a little. Everyone is just getting frustrated with everyone else, so before the flaming gets out of hand, please agree to just disagree. Stop with the little digs, and labeling. This was why I moved it out of the battle forum, to avoid conflicts
greeney2
 
Posts: 9118
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply







The Social Network Buzz
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Religion & Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[ ]