RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,03:53   

Quote
No, Faid that is close, but not exactly what they said ... they did not say "things people build."  Talk Origins said "things that look like what people build."  


(Here we go again...)

...Yes, Dave, because that's what they're looking for.
A cactus in the desert does not look artificial. A steel upright pipe, however, does. No matter how less "complex" it is. Look, I don't think I can find a plainer example. Either you get it, or you don't.
We both know that you're trying to create a confusion in terms, by preassuming that the way you use the term "intelligent design" is the right one, and the only possible. And we both know this isn't true.
Dave, if you like to think a cactus is also artificial, then it's your right; but don't try to enforce your way on thinking on everybody else, and say that' since they're looking for steel pipes, they should also look for cactuses.  :p
SETI is not looking for loaded naive metaphors; they're looking for the real thing. Period.

Keep looking for that "point" you so desperately want, Dave: You're a long way from earning it, but who knows? You may have a good chance to get it, if you start to use real arguments.

(And this is no irony: I actually mean it. Starting to actually use argumentative logic and reasonable points to defend your position, instead of jumping from issue to issue in 4 threads, picking phrases and quotemining and hand-waving or ignoring counter-arguments, is the only way you'll keep yourself from becoming a bore for all, eventually. IMO, of course.)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,03:53   

Quote
There are many things in nature that seem very efficient to us, but there are also a great number of things that are horribly inneficient and badly 'designed', which is what we would expect if evolution were true.
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse" as well as an originally perfect "Design."  I know the "Curse" idea seems strange--I have not yet explained my understanding of it--but it all makes sense if you accept the whole package.  It makes perfect sense to me that a Creator designed everything perfectly, but then "cursed it" as a result of man's choice to not obey God.  One of the biggest reasons I see for the Curse is to show man very clearly that "this world is not our true home."  There is something better coming which our Creator will someday give us if we choose it, and we should not place too much value on our material possessions here on earth.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:01   

So, in short, you've given yourself the Perfect and Ultimate Out.  If common descent is obvious, well, that's just common design.  If a structure works, well, that's obviously the will of the Intelligent Designer.  If a structure doesn't work, well, that's just original sin.

And at that point you wouldn't need to care about any evidence that's provide to you, as you could just pigeon hole it, and be all happy that you're "winning".

Do I have it right.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:06   

Maybe dave can provide a single example of anything anywhere such that "that's the way god chose to do it" is NOT a sufficient explanation. At least, that way we'll have some purchase, some distinction to examine in more detail. But I doubt there is any such example.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:12   

Quote
It makes perfect sense to me that a Creator designed everything perfectly, but then "cursed it" as a result of man's choice to not obey God.

You are aware, of course, that God, being all-knowing and "out of time", already knew all that when he was making the world and man in all their perfection, right? And yet he went on to impose that pointless command (not to eat a fruit, a fruit that suppoesdly did something they already could do, A fruit that had no reason to be there in the first place than to "test" them for something God knew they'd do all along when he made them), And then "cursed" them, and all their unborn children who did not even exist yet, for eternirty? And all this because he loves us?
Doesn't this look like some kind of twisted game?

That was the first question I asked you, and you never answered...


Anyway, all this is NOT science, and we both know it, so nevermind.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:15   

Quote
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse" as well as an originally perfect "Design."
I don't mean things that are 'wrong' nesseceraly, I just mean the odd enzyme that isn't as efficient as it could be, or a pathway that has more components than it could have because it evolved that way (and no I am not talking about redundancy).
Quote
It makes perfect sense to me that a Creator designed everything perfectly, but then "cursed it" as a result of man's choice to not obey God.


Ok so if we say God make very small molecular changes in man fair enough, even though it doesn't appear that way. Why would he then make the same changes in all other organisms, which don't have any phenotypic effect on man at all in his interaction with them You can shrug off 'bad design' but you can't escape the fact that these sytems look like they have evolved as opposed to been engineered.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:16   

Quote
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse"

That's some omnibenevolent god you've got there. It's no wonder I only really ever use his "name" as profanity myself. Your God can smeg off.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,04:25   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,08:01)
Quote
But what is intelligence? Does an intelligent thing necessarily have to have any or all of these qualities:

1) Desire, wants, will
2) Foresight
3) Memory
4) Awareness of itself
5) Creativity and originality
6) Sensory organs
7) Perceptions
8) Communications

Evolution has some of those qualities, memory, creativity and a form of communication.

But evolution lacks others, like foresight, self awareness and desire. The animals it creates has some of them, but not the system that is evolution.

Does your God have all those qualities?

What does a system have to have to be called intelligent?

What SETI is looking for is something close enough to us we might talk to it. Do you talk to God?


Sure I do.  You all could probably guess that I at least imagine that I communicate with God -- it's a well known claim by Christians and others -- of course I'm talking about prayer.  But I have no proof to offer you of the sort you would be looking for to prove that He hears me.  All I can do is offer evidence that "ET" is out there somewhere because in biological machines, we have exactly the kinds of things SETI is looking for (and apparently T.O. acknowledges this).

Dave, you're missing it. You quoted my questions, but only answered the last one; do you think that you talk to God? (You  pray. But does God answer?)

I first listed 8 qualities associated with intelligence and pointed out how evolution doesn't need all of them, then I asked which of those qualities you assumed your God had. Just how mentally anthropomorphic is your vision of God?

What qualities are necessary to call something "intelligent"?

For example, how intelligent is a computer and computer program system like "Deep Blue"? That's the chess playing computer -- it has a kind of foresight, it plays chess and looks ahead, it has memory, but does it have "desire," "awareness of self," "Perceptions"?

See how different systems have different mixtures of those qualities?

Instead of exploring my questions you went off into your preaching and acting completely unaware of your audience. I bet you even frustrate other Christians with babbling preachiness, don't you?

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,05:09   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,08:01)
I agree that it is only a hypothesis and never will be provable.  Put I do make predictions. See my steps above. (and there are more besides this)

I hope there will be more besides this. You only listed one: "This 'ET' probably can communicate to humans."  And your only cited evidence for this prediction is the Bible.

The problem there is that the Bible is more readily explained as a product of purely human activity. We know humans exist. We know they write books. We know different human groups have claimed the existence of different (and often mutually incompatible) Gods throughout history. We know humans sometimes believe things that are objectively false. We know that groups of humans sometimes share common beliefs that are objectively false.

Thus, we can explain the Bible using entirely known phenomenon, without recourse to an undemonstrated God.

Which does NOT, of course, disprove God. Nor does it disprove the Bible as His word. It just means that the Bible is not useful evidence of God communicating with us.

   
Quote
We all know the Bill Gates quote about DNA being software which is far advanced beyond our own software.  I think he should know.


Why? Because he's such an accomplished molecular biologist and geneticist? I submit that the real reason you 'think he should know' is that you've already reached your conclusions (God exists, He made us, etc.), and you accept or reject others' opinions based on whether they agree with those predetermined conclusions.

And that's fine with me. You should just recognize that it's faith, not evidence.

 
Quote
I would turn this around and ask, "What would it take to convince you that the God of the Christian Bible exists and is really as He is described there?"  I'm serious.  What would it take?

Any of the following would certainly make me give it stronger consideration:
*  An objectively verifiable burning bush talks to me and/or to others.
*  A sea gets parted, preferably accompanied by a booming voice.
*  The earth stops rotating for a while, then starts up again, all without killing us.
*  A new species of dats appears suddenly, preferably in a place where there were definitely no previous dats. Molecular analysis shows that half the dats' genes came from dogs, and half from cats.

If the Bible is true, God did all those sorts of things before, so he can presumably do them again, right?

You may say that the Bible shows he already did them, and i should accept that. Unfortunately, we have no corroborating evidence that those things happened. In fact, objective evidence frequently contradicts modern translations of the Bible, e.g. regarding the age of the earth, claims for a global flood, etc.

On the other hand, we do have evidence that people sometimes make up stories like those, or misinterpret 'natural' phenomena as being the work of God.

So, if God exists, and He wants to do some of those things again now, when we're better equipped to observe and record them objectively, I'll reassess my non-belief. Or, maybe you can present actual evidence that is not more readily explained by known phenomena. You haven't done so yet, and I strongly doubt you can, but maybe I'm wrong.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,07:00   

Quote
But what is intelligence? Does an intelligent thing necessarily have to have any or all of these qualities:

1) Desire, wants, will
2) Foresight
3) Memory
4) Awareness of itself
5) Creativity and originality
6) Sensory organs
7) Perceptions
8) Communications

Evolution has some of those qualities, memory, creativity and a form of communication.

But evolution lacks others, like foresight, self awareness and desire. The animals it creates has some of them, but not the system that is evolution.

Does your God have all those qualities?

What does a system have to have to be called intelligent?

What SETI is looking for is something close enough to us we might talk to it. Do you talk to God?


Norm--  Didn't mean to dodge you.  Here's your answers.

All I can tellyou for sure is that the Intelligent Agents that I know about do have all those items in (1) through (8), and of course the Bible claims these same attributes for God.  It is my opinion that these claims are true ... however, I am not asking anyone to join me in that belief until I show my evidence supporting these claims.  This is why I did not answer these in detail yet.  My understanding of an intelligent agent is something similar to animal and human intelligence.  I do not have rigorous criteria yet.  Does God talk to me?  Not in an audible voice, no.  I will explain this more fully in the proper sequence.

More answers later.  I'm breaking for lunch :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,07:21   

Dave, if your arguing for the "philosophical validity" of the teleological argument....then you may need to stop.  I, as well as most others, will admit that it is a valid argument.  I will even go as far as to say that the "fine-tuned" universe argument is my rational reason for believing in God.

You need to realize however that everyone you are talking with is arguing against the scientific validity of the argument.
In that case the teleological argument falls short of any sort of validity.  It makes a great deal of assumption, and while those assumptions may turn out to be true....they arent scientifically valid.

Do you understand the difference between validity and factual?  They are mutually exclusive concepts.  

BTW....you never did explain your belief in the divinity of Jesus.  Im still a little curious about that.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,08:54   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,12:00)
All I can tellyou for sure is that the Intelligent Agents that I know about do have all those items in (1) through (8), and of course the Bible claims these same attributes for God.  It is my opinion that these claims are true ...

My understanding of an intelligent agent is something similar to animal and human intelligence.  I do not have rigorous criteria yet.

You are using the term "Intelligent Agent" in the Dembski sense and not the Minsky sense, (as detailed in Marvin Minsky's book,  "The Society of Mind").


http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155

A review:
http://www.emcp.com/intro_pc/reading12.htm

Dembski assumes against the evidence of neuroscience and  computational explorations of A.I. that intelligence is something supernatural. Minsky tried to build naturalistic intelligent machines and programs.

So, when you say that the Intelligent Agents that you know about do have all those items -- is that because you don't know about robots like Cog? Or chess playing computers like Deep Blue? -- or is it because you don't consider those things composed of intelligent agents?

And where do roaches, ants and other insects fall in  your estimation of intelligence? Ants and  termites do build things like people do -- homes and cities of a sort -- does that similarity imply that ants and termites are intelligent in your view?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,09:00   

Puck... Don't make things for dave more complicated than they already are.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,09:04   

I note that Dave has still failed to provide any of the actual evidence he claimed for his 'Big Brother Designer' type.

Did I miss something?  Or does he simply assume that if he blathers on long enough, we'll forget that his unsupported assertions are, well, unsupported?

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,09:20   

Quote
Do you understand the difference between validity and factual?  They are mutually exclusive concepts.  
Puck, I don't think you meant to say "mutually exclusive."  I think you just meant to say independant.  It's quite true that many factual concepts are even valid concepts!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,09:49   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,08:01)
Yes.  I see the distinction, but why limit ourselves to searching for ET's that are like human "people"?  Why would we not entertain the possibility of a Super-human of some sort.  Are we really so narrow minded that we rule out the possibility of some advanced life form out there somewhere?

Because, Dave, we wouldn't know what to search for. We know of exactly one "intelligent designer": ourselves. If we have no idea what a "designer" is capable of, how would we know what to look for in its designs?

Every time we've been able to determine "design" (the pyramids, Stonehenge, etc.) it's been by direct reference to what we know humans are capable of. How would we determine, even in principle, whether a mitochondrion was "designed" if we can't even make any guesses as to the capability of the "designer"? As I pointed out in a post a few pages ago, that becomes the task of scientists whether they believe in natural or supernatural causes. And the difference is, scientists who believe in natural causes already have an idea of how something like a mitochondrion could have come about; creationists have no idea at all how a "designer" could have come up with a mitochondrion.

And if a "designer" is capable of anything, then how would go about ruling out "design"? It couldn't be done, which means the "creator god hypothesis" is unfalsifiable, if you're using "biological machines" as evidence in favor of the hypothesis.

   
Quote
And I think it is entirely possible and actually quite probable that there really is an "ET" out there who may in fact be more like a "Mind" with no body--a spirit, if you will, who made all these "artifacts" we find here on earth.  And this has nothing to do with "religion" for me, which is why I place this in the category of science.  I consider myself to basically be a sort of private SETI researcher.

Good for you, Dave. Now, would you care to favor us with your hypothesis as to how this "ET" out there actually "made" these "artifacts"? Because evolutionary biologists already have a good idea of how these artifacts are created. What's your guess?

And, how would you go about falsifying your "ET" hypothesis? What evidence would lead you to believe that life wasn't "ET"ed into existence?

   
Quote
And my idea of how this "Mind" did it was basically that he created a perfect environment for life--the Cosmos and Earth--then placed a relatively small number of "biological machines" on Earth, which in turn diversified into the many species which existed before the Flood.  A similar thing happened after the Flood -- i.e. a relatively small number of "kinds" diversified into the present diversity that we see today.  I think some people think that I think God created each individual species.  I do not think this.  I think God basically created the original "kinds" each with their own unique DNA software, then He basically "let the software run" and let the free spirits attached to the minds of the "human biological machines" have free choices to do as they would do.

Okay, Dave. How did he do it? You don't know? He just "willed them into existence"? What's the method? Because without that, you're not talking science. You're talking wild-assed speculation

   
Quote
Actually, I think that many, many things we find in Nature strongly resemble things humans would build. ...  Airplanes are a perfect example.  Nature had airfoils  and propulsion systems before we did.  Nature had vision devices before we did.  Nature had "radar" before we did. ...


See, here's the problem with argument by analogy. You think these natural structures resemble man-made structures; I submit that they do not. Bird wings bear only the remotest resemblance to aircraft wings. About the only thing they have in common is cross-section. Bird wings are much more similar to tetrapod limbs than they are to aircraft wings. The internal structure isn't remotely similar to aircraft wings, but there is an almost perfect one-to-one correspondence between the bones in a bird's wing and the bones in your arm.

And what human-designed thing does a mitochondrion resemble? Don't say "a factory," because no human factory looks even slightly like a mitochondrion.

The fact that two structures that have similar function have similar form isn't really evidence for anything other than the engineering constraints imposed by natural law. How many different forms of a wing are theoretically possible, Dave?

   
Quote
And Nature still has many things which we do not have.  Dupont has studied gecko feet to understand how the adhesive works.  Scientists are studying molecular machines and now are making nano-machines themselves.  I constantly read about scientists observing Nature and trying to mimic it.  


And besides, you're putting the cart before the horse. The notion that human-designed structures bear resemblance to natural ones is better evidence that humans know how to copy than it is that natural structures were designed.

   
Quote
This is great stuff!  I love it!  But it highlites the fact that Nature has technology far, far, far advanced beyond our own in every direction we look. If this is not evidence for and "advanced civilization" somewhere that produced this, then I don't know what is.

This argument would be more compelling if the earth were six thousand years old, but it isn't. Humans have had about 30,000 years to develop any sort of technology, maybe 90,000 at the outside. Meanwhile, natural processes have had almost five billion years to develop solutions to varying problems. Is it any surprise that natural solutions are often more "advanced" than human ones? Well, I guess it would be to you, but that's only because you think the earth's age is .0001% as old as it really is.

In other words, Dave, your evidence of "biological machines" is not very compelling at all. Combined with your not-very-compelling "fine-tuning" argument, I'd say you're zero-for-one so far.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:30   

No...I meant to say mutually exclusive.....
The concepts of validity and factual are mutually exclusive concepts.  
A thing may be both valid and factual....

but validity is simply being logically valid
while factual is a comment on the actual truth of an idea.

They are independent criteria of a statement...but mutally exclusive concepts

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:51   

Not to be nitpicky, but you might want to look up what mutually exclusive means.

 
Quote
A thing may be both valid and factual....

but validity is simply being logically valid
while factual is a comment on the actual truth of an idea.
If something can be both "valid" and "factual", then the concepts of "validity" and "factual" can not be mutually exclusive.  As an example, mutual exclusivity belongs to concepts such as "semantics" and "interesting discussions".

Cheers.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,13:13   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 15 2006,17:30)
No...I meant to say mutually exclusive.....
The concepts of validity and factual are mutually exclusive concepts.  
A thing may be both valid and factual....

but validity is simply being logically valid
while factual is a comment on the actual truth of an idea.

They are independent criteria of a statement...but mutally exclusive concepts

The term "independent criteria" is good, but you're misusing the term "mutually exclusive." If the Venn diagram can have overlapping areas, then they can't be mutually exclusive.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,13:32   

Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,08:53)
Quote
There are many things in nature that seem very efficient to us, but there are also a great number of things that are horribly inneficient and badly 'designed', which is what we would expect if evolution were true.
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse" as well as an originally perfect "Design."

Which makes the whole thing meaningless: ANYTHING you think is positive you explain as good design; ANYTHING you think is negative you explain as curse; since you can account for anything, post hoc, you can predict nothing and explain nothing.

Also this reflects your anthropocentric world view: the whole universe is supposed to be about US. Your only evidence for this point of view is the myths of ancient tribesmen who thought that the sun went round the earth. Some of those myths are very poetic, others are horrible, but all of them stem from ignorance rather than knowledge.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,13:45   

yeah...my attempt to save face was flawed.
Your right....i did use the wrong term...and independent is a more accurate term.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,14:43   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 15 2006,18:45)
yeah...my attempt to save face was flawed.
Your right....i did use the wrong term...and independent is a more accurate term.

See, Dave? That's how rational people admit they were wrong.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4811
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,15:57   

Re "Also given the fact that God is all-powerful he would be able to create a rock so heavy he couldnt lift it and at the same time be able to lift it."

Relative though to what source of gravity? ;)

After all, presumably said rock would exceed the size of stars and such. Then again, wouldn't said rock just collapse immediately into a black hole? Oh well.

Henry

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,16:11   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 14 2006,22:38)
Oh come on UnMark....
all AFDave needs to refute your arguments is a basic understanding of philosophy...and perhaps some light googling.

Heck...i will do it for him....

I really do hope you were joking, Puck.  Dave, I already knew was a mental midget who'd gladly claim that God can create square circles, married bachelors, and five-legged tetrapods.

Dave, I've asked before, but haven't gotten an answer: can God create another God?  Can God create a better God?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,16:11   

That's the problem with god, every time we try to pin something on him we realize it's just projection. :(

Nothing in his world seems to relate much to ours.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,16:37   

Quote (UnMark @ May 15 2006,21:11)
Can God create a better God?

That's what I am.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,17:06   

Missionary AFDave says:
   
Quote
(5) Risk analysis.  Having walked through this entire process, I now am faced squarely with the claim from the Bible:  "Believe me and spend eternity with me when you die." (God supposedly speaking) or "Don't believe me and spend eternity separated from me.  It's your choice, Dave.  I won't force you.  I have given you abundant evidence for My existence.  If this evidence is not enough, what evidence WOULD be enough?"  I have to choose, and it basically boils down to risk analysis.  Which of the two possible choices seems less risky?




Ahhhh...it just wouldn't be the same, having a scientifically illiterate fundy proselytizer prattle on without bringing up Pascal's wager.

Gee Dave, shouldn't you subscribe to the practices of Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Islam at the same time too just to further reduce your risk?  Think of it as buying extra insurance to hedge your bets. One can't be too careful about the afterlife, you know.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,18:06   

No....Davey should obviously either become a Muslim or a Mormon.  They were both religions dictated directly by God himself.  They obviously have more validity than the New Testament of the bible which was thrown together by men.

Either that or maybe Buddhism/Hinduism, since almost everyone agrees that it is more spiritually fulfilling than Christianity...and it actually has an answer to the question of necessary evil

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,18:32   

Quote
Can God create a better God?


well, that WOULD explain where he's been all this time.

working on making ever better clones.

can you imagine?

"Well, this God's OK, I guess, but I'm sure I'll get it even better with the next one!"

etc., etc.

How could he stop once he started?

We'll never see him again.

God, we hardly knew ye.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:56   

Quote
You are aware, of course, that God, being all-knowing and "out of time", already knew all that when he was making the world and man in all their perfection, right? And yet he went on to impose that pointless command (not to eat a fruit, a fruit that suppoesdly did something they already could do, A fruit that had no reason to be there in the first place than to "test" them for something God knew they'd do all along when he made them), And then "cursed" them, and all their unborn children who did not even exist yet, for eternirty? And all this because he loves us? Doesn't this look like some kind of twisted game?

That was the first question I asked you, and you never answered...

Anyway, all this is NOT science, and we both know it, so nevermind.


It should be science.  Theology was once known as the Queen of Sciences, and it should be reinstated as such.  Here's just a snippet from my argument for that from the "Ape Questions" thread.
Quote
And I admit that I am not going to be able to "prove" to you that He did with the "Scientific Method" as you understand it. This is an extremely important point.  Scientists today do not admit certain kinds of evidence into the arena and I (and Meyer, et al) believe this is an enormous mistake ... and I wrote lots more which I won't repeat here ... go read it on the other thread ...


The Genesis story makes perfect sense if you really examine it.  The creation of mankind with a choice necessarily requires the possibility of evil, which by definition is "opposition to the will of the Creator."  What other definition makes sense?  What fun would it be for parents to have "robot children"?  It's a lot more fulfilling for parents to have kids that have a free will.  There is risk, to be sure.  Think about Jeffrey Dahmer's mom, but every day parents all over the world deem it worth the risk.  Why?  Because of the greater good which may result.  Their child may grow up to be the next Louis Pasteur or Mother Teresa.  And even if they don't achieve to this level, there is the wonderful blessings of home and family ... riding bikes, reading stories to them, watching them take their first steps, watching them play little league ball, answering their funny questions, and on and on.  Why is this any different to visualize with God?  To me, it makes perfect sense that God would feel exactly the same way.  Does he want an earth full of zombie robots?  Of course not.  He wants people that have the ability to hate His guts, but make the conscious decision to love Him ... just like human parents do also.  And you can't escape this argument by saying "Well, it's different with God because supposedly He's all-powerful and all-knowing.  Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?"  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.  This also is just like human parents.  They intervene sometimes in the lives of their children and they choose NOT to intervene sometimes because they want the child to learn some lesson.  What is so strange about this when it comes to thinking about God?

Quote
I don't mean things that are 'wrong' nesseceraly, I just mean the odd enzyme that isn't as efficient as it could be, or a pathway that has more components than it could have because it evolved that way (and no I am not talking about redundancy).

Examples?  Are you sure these less-than-optimum items could not be explained by mutational loss of function over time as Creationism predicts?

Quote
Ok so if we say God make very small molecular changes in man fair enough, even though it doesn't appear that way. Why would he then make the same changes in all other organisms, which don't have any phenotypic effect on man at all in his interaction with them You can shrug off 'bad design' but you can't escape the fact that these sytems look like they have evolved as opposed to been engineered.
Creationists don't say God makes very small molecular changes in man.  We say this ...  
Quote
Again, my Creationist Theory regarding apes and humans is that there was one pair of human "kind" ancestors and one pair of ape "kind" ancestors.  Now I do not have a formal definition of "kind" yet and I admit there may have been a "monkey kind" pair as well, but this is not important for the present discussion.  The general idea of Creationist Theory is that there were a relatively limited number of "kinds" created by God, and that God "programmed" enough genetic information into each separate genome so that each "kind" would be able to adapt to the various environments in which they found themselves as they spread out all over the earth.  Today, of course, we find that monkeys and apes have diversified into many different species and that humans also have diversified greatly.
Of course, we say similar things about other "kinds" of organisms.

They do not at all look evolved to me.  There are some things which could be construed that way.  But when everything is considered including stuff like Michael Denton's sequence analysis (Talk Origin's rebuttal is lame), then the evidence is much more convincing in favor of design.

Quote
What qualities are necessary to call something "intelligent"?

For example, how intelligent is a computer and computer program system like "Deep Blue"? That's the chess playing computer -- it has a kind of foresight, it plays chess and looks ahead, it has memory, but does it have "desire," "awareness of self," "Perceptions"?
My only experience with "intelligence" is human, animal and as you point out machine "intelligence" and they are all different.  I think when more research is completed, intelligence will be more rigorously defined.  Dembski obviously is all over this one and he says that it really boils down to the ability to make choices.  Maybe he's right.  I don't know what definitions will ultimately hold up to scrutiny.  One possibility for intelligence that naturalistic scientists rule out, however, is what might be called "spirit intelligence."  My theory is that what really makes me ME is some sort of immaterial "spirit" that somehow interacts with the neurons of my brain.  The real "me" is the spirit and it controls and directs the conscious choices my brain makes all day long.  Of course, I also theorize that there are other spirits which to a greater or lesser degree can compete with my own spirit for control of my mind.  My theory includes both "evil" spirits and "good" spirits, and of course the ultimate spirit--God Himself.  

Science should expand its horizons and investigate these types possibilities.

Quote
I hope there will be more besides this. You only listed one: "This 'ET' probably can communicate to humans."  And your only cited evidence for this prediction is the Bible.

The problem there is that the Bible is more readily explained as a product of purely human activity. We know humans exist. We know they write books. We know different human groups have claimed the existence of different (and often mutually incompatible) Gods throughout history. We know humans sometimes believe things that are objectively false. We know that groups of humans sometimes share common beliefs that are objectively false.

Thus, we can explain the Bible using entirely known phenomenon, without recourse to an undemonstrated God.

Which does NOT, of course, disprove God. Nor does it disprove the Bible as His word. It just means that the Bible is not useful evidence of God communicating with us.
I would challenge your next to last statement.  I agree that the Book of Mormon can be easily explained as a forgery of Joseph Smith.  I have my opinions about other "sacred" texts. But the Bible is so unique when compared to these other texts, that it is really in a class all by itself as Josh McDowell makes such a clear case for in "Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol.1".  My whole belief system hangs on two major premises for which I have found overwhelming supporting evidence:

A--The Wonders of Nature can best be explained by a Supernatural Agent
B--The Bible can best be explained by a Supernatural Agent


Everything else I say flows naturally out of these two premises.  And it is these two major premises which I am seeking to show my evidence for on this thread.

Quote
Any of the following would certainly make me give it stronger consideration:
*  An objectively verifiable burning bush talks to me and/or to others.
*  A sea gets parted, preferably accompanied by a booming voice.
*  The earth stops rotating for a while, then starts up again, all without killing us.
*  A new species of dats appears suddenly, preferably in a place where there were definitely no previous dats. Molecular analysis shows that half the dats' genes came from dogs, and half from cats.

If the Bible is true, God did all those sorts of things before, so he can presumably do them again, right?

You may say that the Bible shows he already did them, and i should accept that. Unfortunately, we have no corroborating evidence that those things happened. In fact, objective evidence frequently contradicts modern translations of the Bible, e.g. regarding the age of the earth, claims for a global flood, etc.

On the other hand, we do have evidence that people sometimes make up stories like those, or misinterpret 'natural' phenomena as being the work of God.

So, if God exists, and He wants to do some of those things again now, when we're better equipped to observe and record them objectively, I'll reassess my non-belief. Or, maybe you can present actual evidence that is not more readily explained by known phenomena. You haven't done so yet, and I strongly doubt you can, but maybe I'm wrong.
May I submit to you the idea that God does not need to make burning bushes and part oceans anymore to show his power and brilliant intelligence?  We now see different "miracles" down the tubes of our microscopes and telescopes and we don't need the other miracles anymore.

Quote
Dave, if your arguing for the "philosophical validity" of the teleological argument....then you may need to stop.  I, as well as most others, will admit that it is a valid argument.  I will even go as far as to say that the "fine-tuned" universe argument is my rational reason for believing in God.

You need to realize however that everyone you are talking with is arguing against the scientific validity of the argument.
In that case the teleological argument falls short of any sort of validity.  It makes a great deal of assumption, and while those assumptions may turn out to be true....they arent scientifically valid.

Do you understand the difference between validity and factual?  They are mutually exclusive concepts.  

BTW....you never did explain your belief in the divinity of Jesus.  Im still a little curious about that.
Please refer to my discussion above about my view that the definitions of science need to be expanded to what they once were in the past.

I do believe that Jesus was in fact, the Creator in a human body.  Weird I know, but well supported I believe.  More on that as we progresss.

Quote
Dembski assumes against the evidence of neuroscience and  computational explorations of A.I. that intelligence is something supernatural. Minsky tried to build naturalistic intelligent machines and programs.

So, when you say that the Intelligent Agents that you know about do have all those items -- is that because you don't know about robots like Cog? Or chess playing computers like Deep Blue? -- or is it because you don't consider those things composed of intelligent agents?

And where do roaches, ants and other insects fall in  your estimation of intelligence? Ants and  termites do build things like people do -- homes and cities of a sort -- does that similarity imply that ants and termites are intelligent in your view?
 I'm not sure what I think about machine intelligence.  Of course, the ultimate machine intelligence would be to take the human genome, synthesize it artificially, modify it to our liking--blond hair, blue eyes, good looking, smart, etc. and place it into an egg and let it grow.  Would it be alive?  I'm not talking about cloning.  I'm talking about true "organism production."  Weird to think about, no doubt.

Quote
Because, Dave, we wouldn't know what to search for. We know of exactly one "intelligent designer": ourselves. If we have no idea what a "designer" is capable of, how would we know what to look for in its designs?

Every time we've been able to determine "design" (the pyramids, Stonehenge, etc.) it's been by direct reference to what we know humans are capable of. How would we determine, even in principle, whether a mitochondrion was "designed" if we can't even make any guesses as to the capability of the "designer"? As I pointed out in a post a few pages ago, that becomes the task of scientists whether they believe in natural or supernatural causes. And the difference is, scientists who believe in natural causes already have an idea of how something like a mitochondrion could have come about; creationists have no idea at all how a "designer" could have come up with a mitochondrion.

And if a "designer" is capable of anything, then how would go about ruling out "design"? It couldn't be done, which means the "creator god hypothesis" is unfalsifiable, if you're using "biological machines" as evidence in favor of the hypothesis.


Of course we do not have any idea how the Designer might have come up with a mitochondrion design.  That is precisely why humans study nature to get inspiration for their own designs.  But if we can figure out how He did it, maybe we can duplicate it ... this is what happens all the time and it is really cool!  But just because we don't know how He did it does not make it sensible to a priori rule out the possibility that He might have and don't even allow the discussion.  It also doesn't make the assertion that it happened by chance any more plausible to sensible people.

Quote
Good for you, Dave. Now, would you care to favor us with your hypothesis as to how this "ET" out there actually "made" these "artifacts"? Because evolutionary biologists already have a good idea of how these artifacts are created. What's your guess?

And, how would you go about falsifying your "ET" hypothesis? What evidence would lead you to believe that life wasn't "ET"ed into existence?

Okay, Dave. How did he do it? You don't know? He just "willed them into existence"? What's the method? Because without that, you're not talking science. You're talking wild-assed speculation
No.  I have no idea how He did it.  But it's fun studying it and trying to figure it out.  This is a productive form of inquiry which yields many fruitful new technologies.  Your definition of science is too limited if you cannot be expansive enough to consider the possibility of Someone somewhere out there who just might have higher tech than you.  My wild-assed speculation is less "wild-assed" than your wild-assed speculation.  Falsification is a bogus demarcation criterion if we are talking about expanded science definitions.  See Meyer's discussion.

Quote
See, here's the problem with argument by analogy. You think these natural structures resemble man-made structures; I submit that they do not. Bird wings bear only the remotest resemblance to aircraft wings. About the only thing they have in common is cross-section. Bird wings are much more similar to tetrapod limbs than they are to aircraft wings. The internal structure isn't remotely similar to aircraft wings, but there is an almost perfect one-to-one correspondence between the bones in a bird's wing and the bones in your arm.

And what human-designed thing does a mitochondrion resemble? Don't say "a factory," because no human factory looks even slightly like a mitochondrion.

The fact that two structures that have similar function have similar form isn't really evidence for anything other than the engineering constraints imposed by natural law. How many different forms of a wing are theoretically possible, Dave?
Agreed that the internals are vastly different.  And better, I might add from several perspectives.  What airplane have you seen that can reproduce itself?  Or feed itself?  Or maintain itself?  Wouldn't that be great if Boeing came up with that?  American Airlines could lay off their whole maintenance division!  And they wouldn't have to acquire new aircraft unless they wanted new capabilities.  They could just have two existing, old aircraft "mate" and presto ... baby airliners!  And for fuel, just put those airliners out to pasture ... no more fuel trucks!  The possibilities are endless!  Now before you say I'm crazy, just think about what we are doing with nano-technology.  The airliners are a silly example, but the fact is that we are mimicking nature at an ever accelerating pace precisely because we find such brilliant designs there.

Quote
And besides, you're putting the cart before the horse. The notion that human-designed structures bear resemblance to natural ones is better evidence that humans know how to copy than it is that natural structures were designed.

I disagree.  To me it is so obvious that living systems were designed because of the higher-than-our-technology involved (by several orders of magnitude) that it stands as the 8th Wonder of the World to me that so many scientists don't see it.

Quote
This argument would be more compelling if the earth were six thousand years old, but it isn't. Humans have had about 30,000 years to develop any sort of technology, maybe 90,000 at the outside. Meanwhile, natural processes have had almost five billion years to develop solutions to varying problems. Is it any surprise that natural solutions are often more "advanced" than human ones? Well, I guess it would be to you, but that's only because you think the earth's age is .0001% as old as it really is.
If you had 5 billion TIMES 5 billion years, it would still not be a plausible story to me, the odds are so staggeringly small for life as we see it to come into existence and develop the way evolutionists say it developed.

Quote
Which makes the whole thing meaningless: ANYTHING you think is positive you explain as good design; ANYTHING you think is negative you explain as curse; since you can account for anything, post hoc, you can predict nothing and explain nothing.

Also this reflects your anthropocentric world view: the whole universe is supposed to be about US. Your only evidence for this point of view is the myths of ancient tribesmen who thought that the sun went round the earth. Some of those myths are very poetic, others are horrible, but all of them stem from ignorance rather than knowledge.
Creationism explains everything MUCH better than Evolution does.  It explains designs in nature, it explains the human condition, it explains the fossil record, it explains coal beds and oil wells, it explains the races of mankind.  It explains dinosaurs and the ice age.  It has predicted many things including the ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record and support for the typological view of nature when the molecular data was examined.  It has predicted "downward" evolution of increasing harmful mutations and continued loss of function over time.  It predicted that the universe had a beginning and predicts that it will have an end, and many, many more things.  

My evidence for the anthropocentric world view is NOT what you say.  It was originally from the Bible which has been proven to be real history.  This view has been recently been confirmed by science by Michael Denton and others.

Quote
See, Dave? That's how rational people admit they were wrong.
I have admitted when I was wrong.  Have you not read the "Chimp Chromosome" thread?

Quote
I really do hope you were joking, Puck.  Dave, I already knew was a mental midget who'd gladly claim that God can create square circles, married bachelors, and five-legged tetrapods.

Dave, I've asked before, but haven't gotten an answer: can God create another God?  Can God create a better God?
I have no knowledge if God can do those things.  To me they are silly questions.

Quote
Ahhhh...it just wouldn't be the same, having a scientifically illiterate fundy proselytizer prattle on without bringing up Pascal's wager.

Gee Dave, shouldn't you subscribe to the practices of Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Islam at the same time too just to further reduce your risk?  Think of it as buying extra insurance to hedge your bets. One can't be too careful about the afterlife, you know.

Christianity is an all-or-nothing proposition.  Jesus made it quite clear that He is the only Way.   If you study the Christian scriptures, you would see that the above suggestion is not an option.

Quote
No....Davey should obviously either become a Muslim or a Mormon.  They were both religions dictated directly by God himself.  They obviously have more validity than the New Testament of the bible which was thrown together by men.

Either that or maybe Buddhism/Hinduism, since almost everyone agrees that it is more spiritually fulfilling than Christianity...and it actually has an answer to the question of necessary evil
No.  As you will see if you stay with me, the Bible is in a class all by itself and is best explained as the sole, authoritative message of the Creator to mankind.

I know there are a lot of unfulfilled "Christians" in the world.  I don't know their story.  Maybe they don't really understand Christianity.  I can tell you that I am fulfilled.  And I know tons of spiritually fulfilled Christians who are an absolute gas to be around.

I don't know many Buddhists and even fewer Hindus.  My sister tried Buddhism and later committed suicide.  I've read stories about Hudson Taylor in China and his encounters with Bhuddhism and they were not pretty.  Ditto for William Carey with Hinduism in India.  But that's about the extent of my experience with these religions.

************************************************************************

I am about ready to move on to my next piece of evidence for a Creator God.  Does anyone have any more questions?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]