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.
He's got this sort of religious feeling at the limits of his knowledge, and this is a trend that will continue for thousands of years to follow this...[and] this quote I just read to you is Ptolemy invoking intelligent design.
"Intelligent design is basically a god of the gaps."
"...As you become more scientific, yes, you're religiosity drops off, but it asymptotes, but not at zero, to some other level."
I don't know what you know about Issac Newton, but from what I have read of his, it tells me there is no greater genius to ever have walked this earth. I don't know if you've ever felt this about someone, but if you just read what he wrote, line by line by line, this guy was deeply plugged into the machinery of the universe. He is un-impeachably brilliant.
Let me read some of Newtons writings. And he did this all before he was 26. When he talks about motion, there is no reference to god. When he talks about his two body force that he deduced, this universal law of gravitation there is no mention of god. As he understood it. He was on top of it. He was there. Even though, before that the understanding of the motions of the planets was given unto god, as no one could explain it. So what you have is Isaac Newton abandoning all reference to god. Until he realized if all you do is calculate the two body problem, the sun and earth, the moon and earth, etc, then the sun and earth are closer to mars, and then closer to the sun again, then here, and there, and all these mini tugs get way too complex.
And he realizes that applying these simple explanations to the solar system can not explain it. So what does he say? He's at his limits. He can not account for how we have stayed this way. God is no where until you get to the general showroom, later in his work, I quote "But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
So there we have one of the greatest scientists of the millennium invoking intelligent design, at the limits of his knowledge. And I want to put on the table that you have people that want to put intelligent design into the classrooms, and yet you also have the most brilliant people that ever walked this earth doing the same thing. So it's a deeper challenge than simply educating the public [...]
Originally posted by ImaFungi
What would the prerequisites of intelligent design invoke?
I think the laws of physics and the establishment, size, function, and potential of the universe is quite intelligent.,,.
i think a sphere ( planets,, stars) and all geometry,, is quite intelligent.,i know it is part optical illusion,,, but when i look at a full moon it is a more perfect circle then i can draw,,, and im intelligent.,,.,. then again a computer could draw a more perfect circle then i can as well.,..,
what would have to happen for the universe to not be intelligently designed ? what does intelligence mean? logic? order? sense? function?
what would have to happen for the universe to be intelligently designed/what does that mean?
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Originally posted by ImaFungi
What would the prerequisites of intelligent design invoke?
I think the laws of physics and the establishment, size, function, and potential of the universe is quite intelligent.,,.
i think a sphere ( planets,, stars) and all geometry,, is quite intelligent.,i know it is part optical illusion,,, but when i look at a full moon it is a more perfect circle then i can draw,,, and im intelligent.,,.,. then again a computer could draw a more perfect circle then i can as well.,..,
what would have to happen for the universe to not be intelligently designed ? what does intelligence mean? logic? order? sense? function?
what would have to happen for the universe to be intelligently designed/what does that mean?
It means nothing.
It just means there are some things we can't explain at the moment; which is the brilliance of science.
you can look at this as a form of higher intelligence that created these unexplainable things, or just assume that reality is complex and we are just too stupid to work it all out yet.
I think the latter is more likely.
A fool thinks he's wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
The greatest minds that have ever walked the planet in terms of science also resorted to a 'higher intelligence' at the limits of their knowledge.
Originally posted by lucidclouds
Great post.
I was surprised he didn't have Einstein on the list.
In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
However, in the letter to Gutkind, Einstein wrote the word God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
Originally posted by HappyBunny
No, he wouldn't. Einstein did not believe in God.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
"But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."
"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ZeuZZ
you saying the universe is not intelligent,,, is like a small child telling its father it is stupid,.,.,.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ZeuZZ
you saying the universe is not intelligent,,, is like a small child telling its father it is stupid,.,.,.
Nature and the universe are likely unbelievably more intelligent than us. Just in totally different ways that we can not fathom yet.
Just because we lack the skill set and can not speak the same language as nature does not impune the fact that nature is intelligent.
I am constantly humbled by the elegance, complexity, diversity and beauty of reality and the universe.edit on 9-10-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by lucidclouds
reply to post by HappyBunny
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
He didn't believe in a personal God. He was agnostic.
Originally posted by lucidclouds
reply to post by HappyBunny
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
He didn't believe in a personal God. He was agnostic.
Originally posted by Barcs
People mock ID believers because they promote a lot of guesswork as facts and twist scientific facts to promote their agenda. There's nothing wrong with believing that the universe was created. It's just when you go against known science and make ridiculous claims without objective evidence, that people ridicule. People seem to have difficulty acknowledging their faith based beliefs as exactly that. They can't just admit they don't know the answer or that they simply believe it. They try to bring science into it and claim its fact, and that's usually where they fail.edit on 11-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)