It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design vs. Free Will

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry, just typing to fast too the Original Poster's replies to see yours but it is indeed what I am getting at.


I'll let you off this time.




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TzarChasm
'hands off' creator just wedges open that margin of plausible deniability. like telling an orphan they have 'hands off' parents. its dumb and its cruel.


But one does not necessarily require the other. The universe could be 'designed' and its inhabitants still have free will. It only means the parameters have been set ('programmed') from the outset. The inhabitants are free to interact with each other and their surroundings without external influence.


"Intelligently designed" means everything has been planned. If accidents are allowed to occur, then intelligent design hasn't occurred. If there are no accidents - then there is no choice.


sometimes accidents produce even greater results than intelligent design.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'll let you off this time.


Thank you. I was about to head down to my Fuhrer Bunker in anticipation of a full scale assault.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'll let you off this time.


Thank you. I was about to head down to my Fuhrer Bunker in anticipation of a full scale assault.


I've had a couple so I'm not in "evil genius mood", yet



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

About 10 years ago I went to a Channeler, and besides knowing my deepest thoughts that even I couldn't express them clearly like she did, she also set up a timeline for the next 10 years, and i'm now reaching the last event of that timeline (maybe i'll be dead afterward lol)

Everything she said back then was true, and happened...

That made me think that the path for each individual is very clear and very hard to change if at all, though I have personally witnessed the power of creative thoughts. But it seems like my creative thoughts have led me to my so called destiny.

It's confusing at best, to the Universe I believe we are no more than fish, dumb as hell and cannot figure anything about what's going on.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




An outside agency can set the parameters of the universe (how it functions) and leave it alone from that point forward.


Then we are no longer talking about intelligent design.

It is not me being obtuse - it is you not understanding what "intelligent design" means. What you are describing is what is known as deism.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




An outside agency can set the parameters of the universe (how it functions) and leave it alone from that point forward.


Then we are no longer talking about intelligent design.

It is not me being obtuse - it is you not understanding what "intelligent design" means. What you are describing is what is known as deism.



Yes, it is intelligently designed. The start of everything was designed (in that scenario). After that it's left up to chance.

That means you can have intelligent design, free will and no need for predestination.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
Then we are no longer talking about intelligent design.


Maybe you have a special definition you personally use but the one I am using is the standard:


Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Source


Nothing about the abrogation of Free Will, is there?



edit on 6-5-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Let's assume for a moment that intelligent design actually means starting things, then sitting back (though, I've just linked you to where it shows that is deism, which isn't even the topic of the OP. Regardless, your scenario then calls into question....

Is God clueless?

Seriously...is the creator in such a scenario absolutely clueless?

If the creator is omniscient - then free will doesn't occur. The only way it would be possible for free will to occur is to be able to act in a way contrary to what the creator knows.

The problem with your examples and the examples of the other poster is that you are trying to apply human examples to a divine question. Can a person make a brick which is then used to kill someone? Yes - of course. Then again, the person who made the brick isn't some eternal omnipotent being who knows what will be done with the brick.

If a person made a brick while knowing that brick was going to be used to murder someone, would you absolve the maker of the brick from all guilt. What if making the brick was the cause of the chain reaction that led to the murder - a chain reaction that the brick maker knew would happen?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




An outside agency can set the parameters of the universe (how it functions) and leave it alone from that point forward. Similar to how someone can program a simulation and allow it to run and interact without outside influence.


In that case, in my opinion, that would imply an imperfect creation, and therefore, an imperfect God, who doesn't know the outcome of its "experiment".



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Nothing about the abrogation of Free Will, is there?


Did I state in the original post that the abrogation of free will is included in the definition of intelligent design? I thought my OP was concerned with showing how free will and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Note the part that says "not an undirected process" - i.e. a directed process.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

Let's assume for a moment that intelligent design actually means starting things, then sitting back (though, I've just linked you to where it shows that is deism, which isn't even the topic of the OP. Regardless, your scenario then calls into question....

Is God clueless?
Who knows? Maybe it's just like an ant farm? God set everything up and wants to see how it runs?


Seriously...is the creator in such a scenario absolutely clueless?
See above


If the creator is omniscient - then free will doesn't occur. The only way it would be possible for free will to occur is to be able to act in a way contrary to what the creator knows.
But that's assuming that God is involving itself.


The problem with your examples and the examples of the other poster is that you are trying to apply human examples to a divine question. Can a person make a brick which is then used to kill someone? Yes - of course. Then again, the person who made the brick isn't some eternal omnipotent being who knows what will be done with the brick.
It doesn't mater who created the bricks. It's an analogy.


If a person made a brick while knowing that brick was going to be used to murder someone, would you absolve the maker of the brick from all guilt. What if making the brick was the cause of the chain reaction that led to the murder - a chain reaction that the brick maker knew would happen?
Again, it was an analogy.

Intelligent design only needs to design something. The designer doesn't need to look after the creation after it is created.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

This is your personal definition of the phrase and not what is typically discussed. There are scenarios where these do not have to be mutually exclusive.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Name one.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
In that case, in my opinion, that would imply an imperfect creation, and therefore, an imperfect God, who doesn't know the outcome of its "experiment".


What if the programmer makes a decision not to know? To purposefully avoid influencing the program by outside observation?

These are all metaphysical debate points but the point I am trying to make, and I believe Terry as well, is that these are not mutually exclusive scenarios.




edit on 6-5-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer but at least he is not a religious nutter



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

I did already.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And I already showed how that would mean that:

a). God is not omniscient
or

b). free will doesn't exist



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a). God is not omniscient
or

b). free will doesn't exist


Or, an omniscient God purposefully excluded themselves from observing and influencing their experiment.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And I already showed how that would mean that:

a). God is not omniscient
or

b). free will doesn't exist


That's not true though. That's your interpretation.

Think of an ant farm. You set that up then leave it be. The ants do what they need to do without your intervention, yet you still watch it.

That covers presence (can't use omniscient presence as we aren't) and free will.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join