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.

 

I will be taking the position that Intelligent Design is more reasonable than unintending naturalism

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
The issue: Which position better accounts for the Universe, as well as the diversity and complexity of lifeforms sampled on planet Earth, unguided natural systems and procceses, or Intelligent Design? I will be taking the latter position, that a Supernatural Creative Intelligence is a more reasonable explanation and account for/of existence as we know it, then an explanation which precludes intent or design, as embodied in popular science and strict materialism.

This is about sincere intellectual discourse and debate, so if you disagree with my strong position then we can continue this debate in the debate section; for all of you Richard Dawkins disciples, lets chat shall we? U2U me.
edit on 20-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: spelling error

edit on 20-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: change title

edit on 20-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: title again, done now




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
In my book, randomness defeats mystical design 7-days a week. Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.

I've seen this argument (same topic) a thousand times. What evidence do you bring that makes your attempt any different than before? Surely you have new evidence; otherwise, you would have continued on with any of the numerous ongoing debates. Please tell me you have something new to bring to the table.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


would you like to debate this topic in the moderated debate forum?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.

I've seen this argument (same topic) a thousand times. What evidence do you bring that makes your attempt any different than before? Surely you have new evidence; otherwise, you would have continued on with any of the numerous ongoing debates. Please tell me you have something new to bring to the table.



Originally posted by mrphilosophias aka M.F. Alexander
A proof of Intention and Design in the Creation of a Universe Hospitable to Life
•A universe which is hospitable to life, and the conditions which were necessary for life to emerge from non-life, assumes a precise and particular co-occurrence of variables:

1.These variables are innumerable.
2.The probability of these variables being met and also co-occurring is consequently incalculable.
3.Supposing knowledge of every variable, and the probability that each particular variable should occur, it would be theoretically possible to calculate the probability that the precise variables would exist and coincide, but the probability would be almost 0.
4.:.It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur.
•A universe exists which is hospitable and host to an abundant diversity of complex living organisms.

1.The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.
2.Life emerged in a distant past present on planet Earth.
3.Life survived, reproduced, evolved, and thrived to the present where we find this diversity of complex life forms.
•Every possible reality exists as a present moment. (
•Every present moment is inextricably connected.

1.The present moment is the culmination of all past presents.
2.Every future moment is the culmination of all past presents.
3.Every past moment is the culmination of all past presents.
4.Every present moment depends upon the first moment.
5.Every possible moment culminates in a last moment. (
6.The first moment inevitably leads to every consecutive present moment and ultimately to a last moment.
7. The past moment in which life first emerged was the culmination of every moment which unfolded from the very first moment.
R14.) From the very first moment the events which unfolded culminated in the existence of a Universe with a precise co-occurrence of variables which are necessary for life to exist and emerge.

1.The Universe was either intended by an efficacious creative being or it was not intended.
2.If it was not intended then:
R4.) It is inconceivably improbable that all of the variables necessary for life to exist should precisely co-occur, absent intention.

However:


R5.) The variables required for such a Universe precisely coincide.

1.:. It is inconceivably more probable that any Universe which is hospitable to life was intended by an efficacious creative being, than that it happened absent intention or design.

Copyright © 2011 Matthew F. Alexander



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
In my book, randomness defeats mystical design 7-days a week. Got any proof for your stance beyond the word of the "good book"? I mean any proof whatsoever? If you want to present your argument, then lay it out with a well thought out defense. At least try to debunk the debunkers before they ...debunk.



randomness is how im building my house. a bunch of contrators came over and dug a foundation and randomly started throwing building materials, plasterboards, wooden railings a couple of sinks a fridge and some electrical wires, tiles and 2x4's.

i'm still waiting for evolution finish my house because all i got right now is a giant ditch with $475,000 worth of supplies. maybeif i wait 700 million years, i'll have a 14 room mansion with an infinity pool.

my next project is a random car. i'm going to a scrapyard and an automotive centre and buying all the necessary parts. then i'm going to toss them all randomly on my driveway and hope it assembles itself.

if something as simple as a car or a house can't come into existence without someone designing and building it, how can you think that something that is much more complicated and so infinitely complex that modern tech.
and the best scientic minds can't understand and can't come close to duplicating, such as the human eye, or base elements such as gold, was just random luck.

have you any idea how ridiculous that sounds. the laws of probablity can't even compute the odds. the odds are zero.

you want proof, you're living proof. the atmosphere and air that supports life is proof. the sun that gives life to the plants that supply our oxygen is proof. there are million examples of proof but you're to blind to see it.

just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.
edit on 20-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
What if both positions were wrong?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrphilosophias
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


would you like to debate this topic in the moderated debate forum?


Yes, are you ready to hang your head in shame? wouldn't be the first...so, maybe you can hang it, yet be proud of your failure.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Your straw man argument fails to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. You are comparing two things that are completely different. Also, the odds of it occurring are 1. At least from the data we have available.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I agree with the intelligent design theory above all others. I would even go so far as to say we need to change or expand on the term intelligent to include the meaning "of ordered structure. i.e. a crystal lattice".



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Have you ever heard of the golden ratio also known as phi?

Golden Ratio

makes things seem not so random.

I for one am for intelligent design.
edit on 20-2-2011 by molecularstranding because: forgot text



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randomname
 


Your straw man argument fails to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. You are comparing two things that are completely different. Also, the odds of it occurring are 1. At least from the data we have available.


I could'nt have said it better. Star for you.

I am sorry but I do not feel like debating this right now op.

I'm feeling lazy.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
request has been sent, looking forward to the discussion



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by randomname
 


Your straw man argument fails to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. You are comparing two things that are completely different. Also, the odds of it occurring are 1. At least from the data we have available.


The anthropic principle does not even pertain to the question of, 'is the Universe the product of intention or not?' In actuality it is redundant to premise that "because this is, this is: if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be." This is the short logic for the anthropic principle which I will deal with more in depth in the actual debate. The anthropic principle is not a statistical principle and is not sufficient to answer questions of probability, nor to exclude these questions of statistics; it is not an example of some non-existent statistical certainty; it is a premise of the anthropic principle that, 'there exists an otherwise unlikely event-the existance of a complex and intricate Universe which is host to a variety of diverse conscious life forms.' Who would disagree that this Universe exists? What then does the anthropic principle hope to prove? That the Universe which we exist in in fact exists? That unlikely Universes such as our own are not impossible because we exist in one? This is to implicitly agree that this Universe is indeed unlikely perhaps, but it does not address the inconceivable unlikelyhood, statistically speaking, that a Universe such as ours should exist. It is this very existence manifest whose statistical liklihood is in question. The probability of a Universe such as our own existing, out of all of the possible configurations and manifestations of the Universe, is not 1, it is 1/n, with n representing the number of varying Universes which are possible. The statistical probability of a Universe such as our own occuring where life is possible is a viable question for statistical scrutiny, if we can: identify the variables which are necessary precursors to such a Universe, and to life, quantify the statistical probability of each of these variables occuring, then it is possible to calculate the probability of these variables coinciding (v1*v2*v3*vx with v representing the probability that this variable should occur, and their summation representing a crude statistical probability that they should all occur(serial or parallel?), or coincide, as is necessary for conditions to be hospitable to life, which they are, and for life to the emerge (from non-life is presupposed),which it has, through abiogenesis(which is problematic), to survive, thrive, reproduce, and evolve(This would include the the extreme improbabilities of certain "events" unfolding: unintentioned mutations being beneficial, efficient, efficacious, and the inconceivable unliklihood of "self-organization" into useful structures and processes, all of which presuppose an ends, which is the system in question as a whole; e.g. cells are comprised on many integrated, interconnected, and interdependent parts, yet these fundamental parts serve to fulfill fundamental functions necessary for the continuance of the cells). Still with me?

What then of value can be gleaned from the anthropic principle?
edit on 20-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: rephrase



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.
edit on 20-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)


Yeah.....just like a snowflake is proof that the snowflake fairy created it...or that the sunset is proof that the Sun God Apollo is dragging it around the Earth

Your argument is perhaps the most laughable strawman I have ever seen.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Interesting topic, one I am still on the fence about. This is not something that can be explained easily by any means. The reason is how deep it actually goes. For instance if "someone" created the universe than: where did they come from, who made them, where are they now and have they created other universes?

I find it hard to beleive that the universe just popped into being from a big bang because it doesnt really explain anything. Just that ALL matter was a small dot and then it exploded millions of years later here we are.

I also find it hard to believe that the entire universe was a big design. Everything is just so complex. Even things that are not commonly thought about like how cells interact with each other would have to be in this plan.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 




just like your car is proof that ford built it, the universe is proof God created it.


If you put two cars together, they can not and will not make baby cars - for one simple reason, they are inanimate objects. Put two humans, rabbits, monkeys, etc... together, there is a chance as long as all the necessary factors are in place, that they 'can' pro-create and create a new life.

Never in my life have I seen two inanimate objects get together and create a new, similar inanimate object. If you have, please tell me how that happens, because I would love to know how I can make a couple of twenty dollar bills pro-create again and again and again. Heck, the US economy would love to see that happen too.

Science does not know everything, for if it did, there would no longer be a need for science as we would 'know it all.' Religion, on the other hand, claims to 'know it all,' and expects you to just accept it.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I am certainly leaning to intelligent design. There are so many things that are, shall we say "Too Odd" for randomness.
Self similarity surly is not random, it is found in biological objects as well as the so called natural world. Why do we have a mathematically perfect universe this is so so complex randomness would appear to be unlikely. Maths can predict the unknown and is often proven over time. I believe there is a feedback into the system that is our thoughts have a feed back loop.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Intelligent Design (or similar ideas by other names) remains in the running because people have experienced the reality of it in small ways in their own lives. Some scientists are also seeing the phenomenon on a smaller scale. The phenomenon is that thought can change matter. Put another way: intention causes action.

But what we really don't need more of is another belief system. Explanations for observed phenomena are put forth in the hopes of building a model from which related phenomena could be predicted. In other words, there is actual utility in a "better" theory.

Physics theories, whether on a sub-atomic or cosmological scale, are (hopefully) advanced to achieve greater workability of prediction, and thus aid in developing new technologies. Biology should be the same way.

And where is biology heading these days? Genetic engineering. Hardly a case of "let's sit back and wait for it to evolve."

Intelligent Design extends the phenomenon of "mind over matter" back to the beginning of life forms in this universe, or at least on this planet. In doing so it opens up a Pandora's Box of ramifications in other human activities. One has to believe, basically, that life, or consciousness, came first, before life forms. I think this is what is giving so many people so much trouble with the subject.

I can say with some certainty that in the field of the mind, and in what could be called "spiritual counseling" for lack of a better term, Intelligent Design has proven a more workable model for therapy than the more materialistic explanations for how life forms were created. It comes up a lot in this field, because the relationship between the being and his body is a huge issue for a lot of people.

And I think it is more and more becoming implicit in genetic studies as well.

Evolutionary theories have their workability. But it must be recognized that genetic engineering opens up the possibility that this may not be the first time in the universe that genetic materials have been engineered.

The problem is: If you accept this possibility then you must also postulate a non-physical (or at least non-human) entity or reality capable of intelligently creating new life forms. I believe that there is in fact considerable evidence that such an entity exists. If so, then the "spiritual" crosses into science. And that is what many are not ready to confront.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
Intelligent Design (or similar ideas by other names) remains in the running because people have experienced the reality of it in small ways in their own lives. Some scientists are also seeing the phenomenon on a smaller scale. The phenomenon is that thought can change matter. Put another way: intention causes action.

But what we really don't need more of is another belief system. Explanations for observed phenomena are put forth in the hopes of building a model from which related phenomena could be predicted. In other words, there is actual utility in a "better" theory.

Physics theories, whether on a sub-atomic or cosmological scale, are (hopefully) advanced to achieve greater workability of prediction, and thus aid in developing new technologies. Biology should be the same way.

And where is biology heading these days? Genetic engineering. Hardly a case of "let's sit back and wait for it to evolve."

Intelligent Design extends the phenomenon of "mind over matter" back to the beginning of life forms in this universe, or at least on this planet. In doing so it opens up a Pandora's Box of ramifications in other human activities. One has to believe, basically, that life, or consciousness, came first, before life forms. I think this is what is giving so many people so much trouble with the subject.

I can say with some certainty that in the field of the mind, and in what could be called "spiritual counseling" for lack of a better term, Intelligent Design has proven a more workable model for therapy than the more materialistic explanations for how life forms were created. It comes up a lot in this field, because the relationship between the being and his body is a huge issue for a lot of people.

And I think it is more and more becoming implicit in genetic studies as well.

Evolutionary theories have their workability. But it must be recognized that genetic engineering opens up the possibility that this may not be the first time in the universe that genetic materials have been engineered.

The problem is: If you accept this possibility then you must also postulate a non-physical (or at least non-human) entity or reality capable of intelligently creating new life forms. I believe that there is in fact considerable evidence that such an entity exists. If so, then the "spiritual" crosses into science. And that is what many are not ready to confront.


Any serious examination of the topic needs to be eclectic, interdisciplinary, and multifaceted. But it seems that we aren't living in a material world after all. Using a thought experiment to establish that there is an objective reality that we all have conscious perception and perspective of, and the wave-particle duality of nature, it is possible to form a sound logical argument which necessitates an Objective Observer aware of all simultaneous possibilities, this Objective Observer would be responsible for collapsing the wave function of all possible realities into one actuality that we are observers and participators in.

BTW I'm not sure if anyone noticed but the anthropic principal got owned up there and I am curious who understands why the anthropic principle is essentially redundant misdirection in these questions of Origins and probability.
edit on 21-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: ammended post



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
The random belief takes a ton of faith. Its like believing that there was a tree that grew, then cut itself down, then nailed itself together and became a wooden chair. Evolution.

Not sure if it is true but it gets the point across. There is a story in which Sir Isaac Newton makes a mini solar system model. A fellow scientist sees it and thinks its great. He asks Isaac "who made it?" and Isaac response with "Nobody."

Point is clear ID is more reasonable.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join