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.

 

Intelligently Designed but Is it Divine?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
From my recollection, scientists would create their own big bang by colliding two objects together and somehow the expansion within the "balloon" would have no effect on the expansion from an external viewpoint. I suppose it falls back on some relativity angle. I don't really understand how it all works but they seemed to.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
From my recollection, scientists would create their own big bang by colliding two objects together and somehow the expansion within the "balloon" would have no effect on the expansion from an external viewpoint. I suppose it falls back on some relativity angle. I don't really understand how it all works but they seemed to.


I tried doing a bunch of search's on google for this today, but nothing I tried bring's anything up about us being close to doing something like this.

I did find this, a "big bang" of sort's in the lab, but nothing that would lead to a new universe.

www.space.com...

I also found this, I guess one physicist has calculated a possible amount of energy one would need to create a baby universe.

www.universetoday.com...

That energy exceeding by far anything we're capable today, if ever.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

And a quick point - emotions are chemical/physiological changes, not merely correlated with them.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by melatonin]


In my opinion,
The chemical/physiological changes that occur are merely one of the measurable physical effects of an emotion acting on the body.
It is understandable that these physiological changes could be viewed as the apparent cause of an emotional reaction if one believed there existed nothing outside the physical realm.

Emotions can and do exist independant of a physical vehicle of expression.
A disembodied spirit can still feel emotion. Someone astral travelling away from there body can still experience emotions relating to their otherworldly surroundings.
(This may appear to be subject matter for another sub-forum but we are on the ATS section after all.)

For an emotion to be expressed physically it must be translated into the physical to be observed/felt.
The chemical reaction/change is like a switching/regulating or a triggering process allowing the emotion(s) to express physically through the body.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by point]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by melatonin

And a quick point - emotions are chemical/physiological changes, not merely correlated with them.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by melatonin]


In my opinion,
The chemical/physiological changes that occur are merely one of the measurable physical effects of an emotion acting on the body.
It is understandable that these physiological changes could be viewed as the apparent cause of an emotional reaction if one believed there existed nothing outside the physical realm.

Emotions can and do exist independant of a physical vehicle of expression.
A disembodied spirit can still feel emotion. Someone astral travelling away from there body can still experience emotions relating to their otherworldly surroundings.
(This may appear to be subject matter for another sub-forum but we are on the ATS section after all.)

For an emotion to be expressed physically it must be translated into the physical to be observed/felt.
The chemical reaction/change is like a switching/regulating or a triggering process allowing the emotion(s) to express physically through the body.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by point]


Yep, heard this sort of idea a few times before. But if we remove certain regions of the brain (or through disease/injury) then emotions can be dysfunctional or even absent - i.e. without the physiology, there is no emotion.

Descartes was wrong, there is no true separation of mind and body. I've seen enough lesion patients myself to know this.

So when in a previous post you stated you believe that emotions are really due to something external to the body/mind, you are correct in a way - it is due to environmental cues rather than some other external force. Although, there is also cognitive routes to feelings/emotions, these are usually reinstatement of previous emotional memories or appraisal of rewarding/punishing scenarios.

Of course, this is scientific opinion which may, or may not, be important to you.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Well....i'm barely getting into this discussion so I'm going back to the original question.....Intelligently Designed but Is it Divine?

I think Point made a good point at saying that it was his opinion. We are all entitled to our own opinions to what we perceive as reality because I "believe" that we are responsible for our own reality and decisions and actions and etc. My point is that an opinion only applies to the person who makes that opinion, so there really no point in arguing, but suggestions and constructive criticism is always good.

That out of the way, in my opinion, I believe that we were created by an all-loving God who takes great joy in our happiness and guides us to become better people. I have a strong Catholic background and am thankful I was raised this way, but I believe that this pertains not only to Catholics but to Christians and Protestants and Muslims and everybody as well. I believe that the presence of God is felt everywhere whether people believe in Him or not and that the Church whether YOU may think it is corrupt is still the best way to make people come together to be at peace for at least one hour out of the week. I believe that it is definitely not sufficient to give one hour to God: God should be kept in our minds and hearts at all times.

I treasure, respect, and admire the engineering community for working to solve many tasks that help us in our daily lives. I treasure, respect, and admire the scientific community for working to find the answers to many of our questions. But......(there is always a but)......if everybody.....and I mean EVERYBODY......was a lot less greedy, mean, intolerant, self-centered, and kept God or the concept of God and lived and expressed themselves in appropriate ways, there would be no need to go out looking to solve problems, no need to go out looking for answers. We should ALL be trying to be happy......is that so hard? Just good 'ole honest to God HAPPY.....The world isn't perfect.....I'm guilty of this too......but if we would make an effort to make it a better place, we would stop worrying whether Darwin was right or whether intelligent design is the way to go.

I wouldn't be in this forum if I wasn't interested in questioning the world, but I now realize that though it is only human to question things and ideas, we should all focus in appreciating what we have and what is given to us instead of going off and do the complete opposite.

So....in other words
Quit asking
Stop assuming
Value life
Have faith in God



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   


That out of the way, in my opinion, I believe that we were created by an all-loving God who takes great joy in our happiness and guides us to become better people.


If this is true, then why did God allow 9/11 to happen?

- Did God think of the horrible death's they suffered?

- Did God think about the thousands of grieving families when he allowed 9/11 to happen ... out of his love for us?

If this is true, then why does God allow people to live in poverty, disease, and starvation?

- Did God think of the horrible living condition's these people are currently unable to get out of due to where they live and having no where else to go?

- Did he think about the millions of children world wide that die a horrible slow suffering death of disease and malnutrition?

If this is true, then why did God create something that would cause us to sin and create something he knew would decieve us into sin?

- Was God even thinking of the ramifications of the corruption, pain, suffering, torture, hate, violence, slavery, intolerance and ignorance that would be followed by such thing's that he for some mysterious reason just happened to create?

- Why would God create or allow such thing's if these thing's displease him and then punish his own children (creation) for something that is ultimatley of his own doing?

I could go on, but I think this is enough - for now.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Prot0n, that's just my personal view, and I'll tell you why I think like that.

I'm pretty sure that you've heard of something called "decision." God gave us the ability to think on our own and decide on our own. He gave each and every one of us freedom of choice however limited the choices may sometimes seem. By love I mean complete, unconditional love to each and every person no matter how "evil" a person may be. One is responsible for one's own salvation and it all comes with choice. People sometimes make wrong decisions that inadvertably affect others, but this does not reflect God's care for His people.

God does not "think" about anything at any particular time. He IS everything that was, is, and will be: He is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. God does not think, He knows. He is Truth. Yet, we are responsible for our own salvation.

You ask, "Why does God allow people to live in poverty, disease, and starvation?
First of all, some of these people can find happiness in their lives and appreciate what they are given. Some of the poorest people that you find can be some of the most appreciating people you will ever encounter. It also reminds those of us that are a little bit better off to give thanks for what we have and understand the importance of everything. Besides, Jesus, like most people of His time, also suffered poverty.

You ask, "Why did God create something that would cause us to sin and create something he knew would decieve us into sin?" and "Why would God create or allow such thing's if these thing's displease him and then punish his own children (creation) for something that is ultimatley of his own doing?"
The reason is choice. Life is a balace. There is good and there is bad. We have the ability to choose good doing or wrong doing. God does NOT in ANY way deceive us into sin. I could argue that Satan is the Tempter, but I see the problem mainly within ourselves. We fall in too easily to temptation, and if we followed the bible a little bit more, we should be like Jesus who refused to fall into temptation thrice while in the desert. We have to remember that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons that lead us to God. Whether you think Jesus is God Incarnate is mainly up to your opinion, but you can't argue that the teachings are moraly incorrect. Matter of fact, biblical teaching hold morality, service, and self-sacrifice as the most important expressions of love.

You ask, "What about the millions of children world wide that die a horrible slow suffering death of disease and malnutrition?"
I have a suggestion: why don't WE do something about that. I assure you that if everything was distributed evenly amongst everybody, there would be no poverty or malnutrition. Have you ever heard the phrase: "90% of the wealth resides in 10% of the population?" If people would share, were not self-centered, and practiced good humanity, there would be none of those problems. This is a worldly problem that WE should solve on our own without even thinking of asking God. Like I said, we make our own destiny and give our life a purpose.

I do not mind that you are trying to question this subject a little bit further, but come with an open mind and not try to attack the issue so aggressively. HAVE FAITH. THERE IS A GOD. If you have a different opinion, i respect that, but all God asks is that you have Faith in Him. Some people misinterpret Faith and think God will put everything at their feet. Remember God said, "Help thyself and I will give help onto thee."


Remember:

Quit asking
Stop assuming
Value life
Have Faith in God



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   


First of all, some of these people can find happiness in their lives and appreciate what they are given. Some of the poorest people that you find can be some of the most appreciating people you will ever encounter. It also reminds those of us that are a little bit better off to give thanks for what we have and understand the importance of everything. Besides, Jesus, like most people of His time, also suffered poverty.


Have you seen the conditions these people live in? Have you seen how they have to go through garbage dumps to find food? Have you seen the polluted water's they have to drink? Have you lived under the oppressive government's they have lived under? Have you lived in places with no medical doctor's available to take care of your sick dying children.

Yes, let's not think about the condition's these people live in, but let's use them as a way to thank the lord almighty for allowing us to live better live's while thousands of innocent children die just to teach us this lesson. Sick and perverted.



The reason is choice. Life is a balace. There is good and there is bad. We have the ability to choose good doing or wrong doing. God does NOT in ANY way deceive us into sin. I could argue that Satan is the Tempter, but I see the problem mainly within ourselves. We fall in too easily to temptation, and if we followed the bible a little bit more, we should be like Jesus who refused to fall into temptation thrice while in the desert. We have to remember that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons that lead us to God. Whether you think Jesus is God Incarnate is mainly up to your opinion, but you can't argue that the teachings are moraly incorrect. Matter of fact, biblical teaching hold morality, service, and self-sacrifice as the most important expressions of love.


I'm abit confused as to why your answer went off topic of the question, but as a rebuttal to what you intially said... Adam and Eve had no concept of what was right nor wrong, nor did they have any concept or understanding of what deception was. They were essentially created as a blank mind with the sole purpose of one thing, worshipping God and listening to his word. But God, being all knowing guy that he is allowed Satan to come down and decieve Adam and Eve. That doesn't make any sense at all. He knew, it would happen. That's like saying I knew my kid was going to punch his friend but I won't stop him untill he actually cause's harm upon the other child. Only then will I punish him for something I know he will do. This is basically what he had done. Then he turns around and lies to us. Why do I say that? He pretends he doesn't know where we are, decieving us into thinking he doesn't know. Why would god need to play such mind game's? Maybe Freud was right about God ....



I have a suggestion: why don't WE do something about that. I assure you that if everything was distributed evenly amongst everybody, there would be no poverty or malnutrition. Have you ever heard the phrase: "90% of the wealth resides in 10% of the population?" If people would share, were not self-centered, and practiced good humanity, there would be none of those problems. This is a worldly problem that WE should solve on our own without even thinking of asking God. Like I said, we make our own destiny and give our life a purpose.


People have and do, me included! It's NOT enough. Surely God would answer the prayer's of those children rather then letting only a handfull who actually care do anything about it. Doesn't Jesus say ALL prayers get answered. YOU tell that to a sick dying malnutrition little girl living in an oppressed government in the most poverty stricken part of the world. See what she has to say.



I do not mind that you are trying to question this subject a little bit further, but come with an open mind and not try to attack the issue so aggressively. HAVE FAITH. THERE IS A GOD. If you have a different opinion, i respect that, but all God asks is that you have Faith in Him. Some people misinterpret Faith and think God will put everything at their feet. Remember God said, "Help thyself and I will give help onto thee."


Faith and worship some being who allows all this when he has the power to make thing's better and still allow freedom of choice... Do you really think free will and freedom of choice can only exist in a world with pain and suffering? I say both you and God are severly messed up.




Quit asking
Stop assuming
Value life
Have Faith in God


Yes, stop questioning his motive's. He's way to mysterious for us to understand why innocent people have to die in the worst conditions possible. Questions like that just don't "feel" good to think about.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

Originally posted by mytym
From my recollection, scientists would create their own big bang by colliding two objects together and somehow the expansion within the "balloon" would have no effect on the expansion from an external viewpoint. I suppose it falls back on some relativity angle. I don't really understand how it all works but they seemed to.


I tried doing a bunch of search's on google for this today, but nothing I tried bring's anything up about us being close to doing something like this.

I did find this, a "big bang" of sort's in the lab, but nothing that would lead to a new universe.

www.space.com...


I think what you guys are talking about is Andrei Linde and/or Alan Goth's hypothetical experiment. Goth is a theoretical physicist/Prof physics at MIT who original proposed the inflationary model for the universe. If you watch the Discovery Science Channel on tuesday nights (starting 8pm EST) he's usually on one or more of the (3) shows.


web.mit.edu...
Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible. The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely.


You can read a little more about it here - www.slate.com... - that page should provide some more on topic fodder for the thread...


Linde, it should be said, is famous for his mock-gloomy manner, and these words were laced with irony. But he insisted that this genesis-in-a-lab scenario was feasible, at least in principle. "What my theoretical argument shows—and Alan Guth and others who have looked at this matter have come to the same conclusion—is that we can't rule out the possibility that our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it."

It struck me that there was a hitch in this scheme. If you started off a Big Bang in a lab, wouldn't the baby universe you created expand into your own universe, killing people and crushing buildings and so forth? Linde assured me that there was no such danger. "The new universe would expand into itself," he said. "Its space would be so curved that it would look as tiny as an elementary particle. In fact, it might end up disappearing altogether from the world of its creator."

[...]

"You might take this all as a joke," he said, "but perhaps it is not entirely absurd. It may be the explanation for why the world we live in is so weird. On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker."

Linde's theory gives scientific muscle to the notion of a universe created by an intelligent being. It might be congenial to Gnostics, who believe that the material world was fashioned not by a benevolent supreme being but by an evil demiurge. More orthodox believers, on the other hand, will seek refuge in the question, "But who created the physicist hacker?" Let's hope it's not hackers all the way up.


*so who created "the hacker?"*


enjoy



[edit on 26-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by melatonin

And a quick point - emotions are chemical/physiological changes, not merely correlated with them.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by melatonin]


In my opinion,
The chemical/physiological changes that occur are merely one of the measurable physical effects of an emotion acting on the body.
It is understandable that these physiological changes could be viewed as the apparent cause of an emotional reaction if one believed there existed nothing outside the physical realm.

Emotions can and do exist independant of a physical vehicle of expression.
A disembodied spirit can still feel emotion. Someone astral travelling away from there body can still experience emotions relating to their otherworldly surroundings.
(This may appear to be subject matter for another sub-forum but we are on the ATS section after all.)

For an emotion to be expressed physically it must be translated into the physical to be observed/felt.
The chemical reaction/change is like a switching/regulating or a triggering process allowing the emotion(s) to express physically through the body.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by point]


Yep, heard this sort of idea a few times before. But if we remove certain regions of the brain (or through disease/injury) then emotions can be dysfunctional or even absent - i.e. without the physiology, there is no emotion.

Descartes was wrong, there is no true separation of mind and body. I've seen enough lesion patients myself to know this.


[edit on 25-3-2006 by melatonin]


IMO
"Without the physiolgy there is no emotion" is similar to saying "without the radio receiver there are no radio waves"
Would you also agree with this statement?

How does the amount of lesion patients you've seen equate to concluding there is no true seperation of mind and body? If you substitute 'mind' with 'brain' then that would make more sense.
The brain (biological computer) is merely the physical vehicle needed for the mind to translate thoughts into words/actions using the rest of the body.
If the radio receiver isn't functioning properly because of damage or because an important part is removed, you may not be able to listen to your favorite radio station. The same principal applies to the brain.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by point]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Awsome thanks Rren!

I have a question (well two! I'm working on the second one so it make's abit of sense.). If we created a universe through quantum tunneling and it disconected from this universe via micro-wormhole's, then we as the 'creators' would have no effect on the distribution of matter and energy after the initial 'bang' and everything within that universe after it's divergence would be left totally up to chance alone.

How does this, or could it even, play into the ID theory? Say the Designer used this method of creation, there technically would be no possible way for the desinger to have any ability to impart IC genetic coding into the universe. Even IF, and that's a BIG IF, the Designer were able to inject IC genetic coding into that universe, the intense energies and temperature's inside at that point in time would literally rip apart and disintigrate any organic material.

If there were a Designer who used this method, it would be reasonable to assume that it was his only dealing's with creation. Anything inside after divergence would be utterly up to chance alone, including IC systems. If this were the case, wouldn't this invalidate any claim of man being designed? Or do we now bring in a new designer that was naturally created within this universe, who then decided to create us, or create the initial genetic coding complete with IC systems code in it, on our planet?

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by point
Could He/She correctly be thought of as a compassionate, fair, just, loving, benign, good and divine designer/creator?


Some one here .. and I don't remember who it was ... described God
as a deadbeat dad. A 'dad' Who created the offspring but then for the
most part leaves 'em to fend for themselves in the world and doesn't
make any child support payments.

It's hard to see any child support. I suppose He could be working behind
the scenes and we don't see the miracles or the support.

But when it's been a miserable day I often go back to this statement
that a wise ATSer said .... and I think about that possibility ... that God
is a deadbeat dad.

If it were MY children who were to die such a miserable death in the
tsunami ... young children frightened beyond belief and subjected to
horrific pain .... and if I had the power to make it not happen and stop
the pain of my child/children... I'd do it. Those were God's children who
died so painfully and in such fright in that tsunami (just one example).
Where was 'Dad'?

We are told that God knows everything and that His way is best, but
I do question that ... A LOT more now than when I was younger.



[edit on 3/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Nevermind

Gotta remember my new Mantra... 'Don't feed the trolls.... even repackaged ones.'


[edit on 27-3-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by point
IMO
"Without the physiolgy there is no emotion" is similar to saying "without the radio receiver there are no radio waves"
Would you also agree with this statement?


No.

Maybe "without the radio transmitter there is no radio waves" but then radio waves are also produced in the cosmos, whereas there are no cosmological phenomenon that have emotions. Emotions can not be truly separated from biology.

The film Scream is not emotional of itself, the perception of the scenes are emotional. Some people may find Scream scary, some may find it funny, some may find it sad - emotions are idiosyncratic depending on previous experience and preferences, i.e. they depend on the individual. Whereas all radios when tuned to the same station, play the same tune...

If I placed a single electrode into your amygdala I could make you feel fear by stimulation. If I stimulated a radio receiver it will not produce a radio wave.


How does the amount of lesion patients you've seen equate to concluding there is no true seperation of mind and body? If you substitute 'mind' with 'brain' then that would make more sense.
The brain (biological computer) is merely the physical vehicle needed for the mind to translate thoughts into words/actions using the rest of the body.


It was just adding a anecdotal but scientific edge to the opinion of most neuroscientists/neuropsychologists. If you are interested in the scientific POV, read 'descartes error' by Antionio Damasio

You have an interesting POV but Descartes was wrong. There is no true separation of mind and body. The mind is an epiphenomenon of brain function. The mind is not independent, the only independence is in some people's brains






If the radio receiver isn't functioning properly because of damage or because an important part is removed, you may not be able to listen to your favorite radio station. The same principal applies to the brain.
[edit on 27-3-2006 by point]


Not really.

Do 'lower' animals have a similar "emotion" receiver?

[edit on 27-3-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 27-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Awsome thanks Rren!

I have a question (well two! I'm working on the second one so it make's abit of sense.). If we created a universe through quantum tunneling and it disconected from this universe via micro-wormhole's, then we as the 'creators' would have no effect on the distribution of matter and energy after the initial 'bang' and everything within that universe after it's divergence would be left totally up to chance alone.


Hi Produkt,


Well theoretically you (the 'designer') could set the parameters or 'stack the deck' in favour of certain outcomes, from the link i posted above...


But then Linde thought of another channel of communication between creator and creation—the only one possible, as far as he could tell. The creator, by manipulating the cosmic seed in the right way, has the power to ordain certain physical parameters of the universe he ushers into being. So says the theory. He can determine, for example, what the numerical ratio of the electron's mass to the proton's will be. Such ratios, called constants of nature, look like arbitrary numbers to us: There is no obvious reason they should take one value rather than another. (Why, for instance, is the strength of gravity in our universe determined by a number with the digits 6673?) But the creator, by fixing certain values for these dozens of constants, could write a subtle message into the very structure of the universe. And, as Linde hastened to point out, such a message would be legible only to physicists.


So this newly created universe would be designed to have matter, stars, planets, organic chemistry etc... here's a good link (I'd recommend this link also) on the various parameters that allow us to be here; giving the universe the "appearance" of being finely tuned or designed. Of course I say that it's more than the appearance of design, it's emperical evidence of an actual design.




How does this, or could it even, play into the ID theory? Say the Designer used this method of creation, there technically would be no possible way for the desinger to have any ability to impart IC genetic coding into the universe. Even IF, and that's a BIG IF, the Designer were able to inject IC genetic coding into that universe, the intense energies and temperature's inside at that point in time would literally rip apart and disintigrate any organic material.


I'm not following you here. What do you mean by "IC genetic coding?" And most ID theorists and old-earth creationists accept the BBT timeline for the formation of organics, nobody - that I know of - is suggesting organics were 'injected' into the universe as you intimate (that is if i'm understanding you.) You could say that "the designer" knew the end outcome of stellar evolution or IOW, organics were not 'injected' so much as planned for.



If there were a Designer who used this method, it would be reasonable to assume that it was his only dealing's with creation. Anything inside after divergence would be utterly up to chance alone, including IC systems.


See above. IC components/systems (as ID theorists define it) are not created by a "chance assemblage of parts" to quote Behe... if they were they would not be IC or, more appropriately perhaps, have an IC core. Or IOW the concept of IC is more than just 'remove essential parts and you'll lose function.' I was going to give you this link re: Paul_Richard's ID thread but it makes sense here too -

www.designinference.com... - to get you familiar with IC as ID theorists propose it and not the straw man version put forth by critics like Miller. The link is a direct response to Miller (from Dembski) and also answers your misconception of IC... speaks to your comment in the other thread re: 'the debunked IC flagellum.' You can read one of Behe's replies to Miller here which also addresses some of your questions.



If this were the case, wouldn't this invalidate any claim of man being designed? Or do we now bring in a new designer that was naturally created within this universe, who then decided to create us, or create the initial genetic coding complete with IC systems code in it, on our planet?

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Prot0n]


I do see where your going and hopefully you can know see what ID theorists mean when they say the identity of the designer is too philosophical to be scientific. Dembski attempts to explain this mathematically in his "Searching Large Spaces" paper (eg, Displacement Theorem in his "No Free Lunch Regress") which is sort of, so far as i understand it, a WDTD argument...

"shows that stochastic mechanisms cannot explain the success of assisted searches." He further states,

"we lack a stochastic mechanism to explain the nonuniform probabilities (and corresponding assisted searches) that the larger environment is supposed to induce and that makes effective search of the original space possible. In either case, the No Free Lunch Regress blocks our attempts to account for assisted searches in terms of stochastic mechanisms." [Source .pdf] That particular paper makes sense in the context of this thread also imo.

I thought i would re-read these and put up a post, but it's proven to be harder to comprehend than I'd hoped... you sort of need to understand the math to be able to appreciate the conclusion, and I don't.

Essentially if you think about "the hacker" from above he has to have a 'hacker' and he a 'hacker' so on ad infinitum (same works for a natural mechanism)... eventually you run out of hackers. But like i said the idea behind it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface, for me at least.

I thought I'd rip out a layman's 'crib notes' version of the four .pdfs i posted in Paul_Richard's ID thread, but I'd rather not post a review of something that I can't defend or support properly... I've read each several times now and still have more questions than answers. Currently i'm reading and the replies from critics and the replies to those from Dembski which is usually how I digest something that, as a layman, I normally could not. Takes quite a bit of time that way... i could deal with what masterp commented on but that kind of "discussion" doesn't really interest me and ultimately will accomplish nothing.

I decided that, assuming I ever finish, I'll probably start a new thread to discuss it in hopes of setting the tone; such that some of our resident scientists will get involved... we'll see.

Regards,
-Rren

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
"without the radio transmitter there is no radio waves" but then radio waves are also produced in the cosmos, whereas there are no cosmological phenomenon that have emotions. Emotions can not be truly separated from biology.

(...)

If I placed a single electrode into your amygdala I could make you feel fear by stimulation. If I stimulated a radio receiver it will not produce a radio wave.

(...)

Do 'lower' animals have a similar "emotion" receiver?




How do you know there's nothing out in the cosmos with emotions? Of course you don't.
Without a some sort of mind controlling it, the brain is just a computer waiting to told what to do. It stores information/memories etc. just like a computer. Somethings still got to push the buttons.
Of course 'lower' animals have a similar make up to humans.
If you limit yourself to the physical alone and exclude anything outside of that narrow spectrum then you can never arrive at any real conclusion on how anything really works. All you do is observe effects believing them to be the root causes of phenomena.
BTW keep your electrode out of my amygdala.


Mod Edit Big Quote

[edit on 28-3-2006 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
How do you know there's nothing out in the cosmos with emotions? Of course you don't.


what you mean neutron stars might be a tad emotional? Maybe they do get a bit moody every now again, red dwarfs might feel a little embarassed, and black holes suffer occasional PMS...



Without a some sort of mind controlling it, the brain is just a computer waiting to told what to do. It stores information/memories etc. just like a computer. Somethings still got to push the buttons.


Does this apply to all animals? Do ants have a sense of self and consciousness? Evolution has provided biological mechanisms for organisms to act in their best interests, usually via the processes of reward and punishment (i.e. emotional mechanisms), although the human ability to reason does allow us to usurp this process.



Of course 'lower' animals have a similar make up to humans.
If you limit yourself to the physical alone and exclude anything outside of that narrow spectrum then you can never arrive at any real conclusion on how anything really works. All you do is observe effects believing them to be the root causes of phenomena.


This time does a worm have a sense of self? How about E-coli? Or are we different? Maybe our massive neocortex has no effect on our behaviour...

So when Phineas Gage had a metal rod shoot through his frontal lobe, destroying it, did his soul change personality or were the effects purely physical?



BTW keep your electrode out of my amygdala.


haha, I was just charging it up as well.

When we administer all these mood altering chemicals do they transmit their effects to the external force you seem to want to apply. Seems a bit excessive to invoke such a phenomenon when there is no other need but theological/philosophical, especially when we already understand many of their chemical/biological effects. Occam would be sharpening his razor, if we did.


[edit on 28-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n



That out of the way, in my opinion, I believe that we were created by an all-loving God who takes great joy in our happiness and guides us to become better people.


If this is true, then why did God allow 9/11 to happen?

- Did God think of the horrible death's they suffered?

- Did God think about the thousands of grieving families when he allowed 9/11 to happen ... out of his love for us?

If this is true, then why does God allow people to live in poverty, disease, and starvation?

- Did God think of the horrible living condition's these people are currently unable to get out of due to where they live and having no where else to go?

- Did he think about the millions of children world wide that die a horrible slow suffering death of disease and malnutrition?

If this is true, then why did God create something that would cause us to sin and create something he knew would decieve us into sin?

- Was God even thinking of the ramifications of the corruption, pain, suffering, torture, hate, violence, slavery, intolerance and ignorance that would be followed by such thing's that he for some mysterious reason just happened to create?

- Why would God create or allow such thing's if these thing's displease him and then punish his own children (creation) for something that is ultimatley of his own doing?

I could go on, but I think this is enough - for now.


I've brought this up before. This is what I alluded to in my original post.
Yet, the thread has gone off on tangents left ,right and centre.
The 'God' that created/ designed this universe is not a the caring ,loving benevelent divine intelligence, just the opposite.
That does not mean a greater truely divine and benevelent god does not exist. There may be more than one!



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
what you mean neutron stars might be a tad emotional? Maybe they do get a bit moody every now again, red dwarfs might feel a little embarassed, and black holes suffer occasional PMS...


I meant other lifeforms like humans or animals, but maybe your right!


Does this apply to all animals? Do ants have a sense of self and consciousness?


Yeah, why not. Why wouldn't an ant have a conciousness. It's got a physical body just like the rest of us. Got to have a pilot to drive the fandangled six legged contraption.


This time does a worm have a sense of self?


I was thinking more along the lines of mammals and reptiles when you said 'lower animals', but a worm would of course have a conciousness as well. That crazy worm knows where it's at.


When we administer all these mood altering chemicals do they transmit their effects to the external force you seem to want to apply. Seems a bit excessive to invoke such a phenomenon when there is no other need but theological/philosophical, especially when we already understand many of their chemical/biological effects. Occam would be sharpening his razor, if we did.


Many of the mood altering drugs actually can block/impede the connection between the conciousness and the physical brain/body. Anyone in the mood for a sedative?
I don't think occam or his razor were all that sharp to begin with. Maybe that's why he liked to keep things simple.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
I meant other lifeforms like humans or animals, but maybe your right!


and I would expect such life forms to have biological mechanisms underlying emotion.



Why wouldn't an ant have a conciousness. It's got a physical body just like the rest of us. Got to have a pilot to drive the fandangled six legged contraption.

I was thinking more along the lines of mammals and reptiles when you said 'lower animals', but a worm would of course have a conciousness as well. That crazy worm knows where it's at.


You really think an ant and worm have a similar understanding of their place in the environment as we do? For example, do they have the ability for self/other distinction and self awareness? Does bacteria have the same ability, if not why not?

The reason I ask is because most cats and dogs don't seem to possess self-awareness. Hence the reason they show aggression to their mirror image. However, higher primates do recognise their reflection as themselves. For instance, chimps will try to remove painted marks on their noses when seeing it in a mirror. But lower primates do not.



Many of the mood altering drugs actually can block/impede the connection between the conciousness and the physical brain/body. Anyone in the mood for a sedative?
I don't think occam or his razor were all that sharp to begin with. Maybe that's why he liked to keep things simple.


So when we give schizophrenics clozapine it blocks the connection with the evil spirit and allows connection to a good spirit? Maybe the drug just dampens down the overactive neurotransmitters associated with psychotic symptoms...

Do these disembodied consciousnesses exist fully formed, or do they start undeveloped?

It just seems that children's understanding of the independence of mental states of self and others (known as theory of mind) develops as their brain develops.

Example TOM task...

Max eats half a choccy bar, he puts the rest in the cupboard. He goes out to play. Meanwhile his mum removes the choccy bar and puts it in the fridge.

When Max comes back where does he look for the choccy bar?

Older children will answer "the fridge" but small children "the cupboard"

Why? Because small children do not understand the distniction between their mental state of knowledge and others mental states. This task depends on activity in the frontal lobe, which, unsurprisingly, is immature in small children, in fact, it isn't fully developed until well past puberty (and can easily explain impulsivity of teenagers).

The frontal lobe is essential for social cognition and higher mental states. Primates have a fairly large frontal lobe, we have the largest of all animals. Dogs and cats have a pretty underdeveloped frontal lobe, worms don't have one at all. The state of an animal's cognition and learning abilities are related to brain size. Even IQ is related to brain development in humans.

When the frontal lobe is damaged (such as in the phineas gage case) personality and social cognition suffer. Psychopathy and sociopathy are also associated with frontal dysfunction. Of course, you might want to believe psychopaths have an evil soul or are possessed, science believes otherwise.

Did you know that most witches burnt at the stake may have been affected by diet? In those times people ate rye bread, rye grows ergot fungus; ergot fungus contains lysergic acid diethylamide-like chemicals. These chemicals made people insane. Of course, to some (and to the people at the time) it might look just like possession by evil spirits...


[edit on 29-3-2006 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join