The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

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.

Postby frrostedman » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:48 pm

at1with0 wrote:Being owned by feelings is not greater than the alternative.

frrostedman wrote:
at1with0 wrote:No creator is simpler than creator plus creation.

No it's not because creation can't be created without a creator. So, to have all this stuff of reality around us without a creator, you have to get around it with all kinds of theories and scenarios with no evidenciary support. That is vastly more comlicated than: Creator + creation.



Assuming existence was created, which in turn requires a creator, is more complicated than realizing existence was not created.

Touché, however it is quite a leap to look at all this around us and just assume it wasn't created. That defies logic. I understand where you're going with it. If I may: You believe in a "God" that has always existed and was therefore never created, and, all that we see around us is just part of God. I get that I'll grant that it is far less complicated than all this infinite universes and realites stuff, but, it just doesn't make sense to me. Your concept reduces human beings to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus cells. 8-)
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby at1with0 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:30 pm

frrostedman wrote:Touché, however it is quite a leap to look at all this around us and just assume it wasn't created. That defies logic. I understand where you're going with it. If I may: You believe in a "God" that has always existed and was therefore never created, and, all that we see around us is just part of God. I get that I'll grant that it is far less complicated than all this infinite universes and realites stuff, but, it just doesn't make sense to me. Your concept reduces human beings to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus cells. 8-)


I'm not assuming existence wasn't created I'm just saying that's simpler. Maybe not, though, due to the problem of infinite regress (which I don't see a problem with).

Yes I believe God always existed in some form or another and all that we see around us is just part of God.

As far as humans being a virus, well, I do not judge the importance of humanity as either supremely important or supremely insignificant.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby khanster » Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:56 pm

You cannot prove intelligent design if you cannot reach a consensus on the a definition of intelligence. Intelligence, like the set concept, cannot be rigorously defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

Numerous definitions of and hypotheses about intelligence have been proposed since before the twentieth century, with no consensus reached by scholars.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby at1with0 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:34 pm

I wonder if it's even possible to prove humans are intelligent...by that rationale.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby khanster » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:42 pm

at1with0 wrote:I wonder if it's even possible to prove humans are intelligent...by that rationale.


Proof depends on the initial axioms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. In Turing's original illustrative example, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.


If the universe is a quantum computer that can pass the Turing test, then, the universe can be said to be intelligent, or created by some meta-intelligence and things in the universe can be said to be intelligently designed, including the universe.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby event_horizon » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:25 am

humphreys wrote:An infinite number of Gods, now there is a scary thought!


I wouldn't say infinite, but there would have to be a few million or billion.

Michio Kaku has said that one day scientists might be able to create a universe in a lab. Of course, it would exist in another dimension. But it would make us gods...perhaps not omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omnipotent gods, but gods nonetheless.
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado

Postby event_horizon » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:29 am

greeney2 wrote:
event_horizon wrote:Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.


The idea one is a strong or weak atheist, and defined as not having to provide proof, is pretty lame. If you don't believe, thier is no degree of how much more or less your non-belief is measured. As far as proof, I've said many times, and have not changed what I've said, and that is the only proof of this question to any of us, is to die, as the way to find out. We all get the proof on that day, and nobody has ever returned to tell us the answer.

Its rather odd, not to mention a cop out, to sit in judgement or everyone elses Logic, or Faith based on logical concenceous, when you can not even express a logical proof standard of you own.

Yes, I do know what logic is, and there are many standards used in logic. Did you read wikipedia's definition? Many forms of reasoning, and many differences in logic between cultures, both by countrys, and by time in history, etc.. It is not just Humphreys simple idea of logic, that you are a "critical thinker" and believers are incapable ofit.

Humphreys why are you unable to explain, what logical proof would you accept, if you are a critical thinker? Its a very simple question.


That's not my quote. That's Humphreys quote. I'm a strong atheist.
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado

Postby greeney2 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:31 am

I'm not sure how that happened Event--I copy and pasted the lines, hit the quote button and didn't notice your name was put in automaticailly. You are right, it was humphreys qoute and not intended to show your name. My mistake. :Doh:


However you did say in reply you are a strong Atheist, and Humphrey stated a weak athiest just does not believe, and also has no proof, where a strong Atheist presents proof of the non-existance of God. Is that true, a strong Atheist can proove God does not exist, since a weak Atheist claim he can not?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9595
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:41 am

greeney2 wrote:I'm not sure how that happened Event--I copy and pasted the lines, hit the quote button and didn't notice your name was put in automaticailly. You are right, it was humphreys qoute and not intended to show your name. My mistake. :Doh:


However you did say in reply you are a strong Atheist, and Humphrey stated a weak athiest just does not believe, and also has no proof, where a strong Atheist presents proof of the non-existance of God. Is that true, a strong Atheist can proove God does not exist, since a weak Atheist claim he can not?


Should be interesting to see him wave his hands to prove there is no God of any sort whatsoever.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:42 am

greeney2 wrote:
event_horizon wrote:Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.


The idea one is a strong or weak atheist, and defined as not having to provide proof, is pretty lame.


It isn't lame. I don't have proof, so I don't claim to be able to provide it.

What could be simpler?

Do you believe in leprechauns? I'd assume no. Well, where's your proof they don't exist? You don't have any. So, with regards to leprechauns, you take the same position as the weak atheist does towards God.

It's simple, and it makes sense.

greeney2 wrote:Humphreys why are you unable to explain, what logical proof would you accept, if you are a critical thinker? Its a very simple question.


Like I said clearly, if I could cite a "logical proof" of God's existence, then I would have to be a believer. I cannot cite a proof because there isn't one.

You are confused about what a logical proof is. You are confusing it with a scientific proof, or proof by observation.

Logical Proof: http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/logicalproofterm.htm
"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.

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests