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 first cause: why it must exist

page: 50
18
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Back from holiday-- ok where were we? Oh right,


Originally posted by Barcs
How is that a straw man? My point was that APPEARANCE of design does not indicate design and I demonstrated it perfectly.


This is a well designed a straw man post
 
How? Where is the organized biological complexity in that picture of yours? You might as well be trying to convince people that the moon rock is just like the apple.

I'm not talking about design from an aesthetic aspect which is what you are doing with your example. In that sense, yes, the appearance of design is subjective.

I'm talking about design from the viewpoint of functionality. When we observe the complexity, functionality and order of something, this is not subjective. It either is or it isn't.

Start with a cell and its very specific structure and set of functions. I bet we could use the same words and terms to describe everything about a cell as we could with a factory or a city, and you might never be able to tell the difference. Now try to do that with your picture.



Originally posted by HarryTZ
Hmm... no, doesn't look designed to me. There's a difference between natural selection and evolution, and erosion and weathering.


Originally posted by Barcs
Note the bold. It boils down to personal opinion. What I think looks designed may not be the same as another person. Just like your picture. To me, that does not look designed, so your point is moot.

So you think an asymmetrical erosion pattern looks designed, but the almost perfect geometric fractal pattern of the romanesco broccoli doesn't?
Hmm

edit on 8-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So you think an asymmetrical erosion pattern looks designed, but the almost perfect geometric fractal pattern of the romanesco broccoli doesn't?


Yea... You can't really play the 'design is subjective' card when it comes to complex geometry. A bunch of uneven sediment isn't geometrical.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Originally posted by Barcs
Consciousness/awareness does not come close to proving Intelligent Design, either way so it's a big red herring in this argument. We are going more and more off topic with every response we make about this.

Actually I think consciousness has very much to do with the topic at hand. Consciousness and intelligence are aspects of each other and are each a part of what defines the other. Yes there are many meanings to both, but it is consciousness that I will speculate is a fundamental aspect of our universe. Many scientists are now putting in a real effort to try and figure out what gives rise to consciousness. So I think it's silly to question if it's real.

The essence of your experience of existence is consciousness and proves you are you. What was the determining factor that made you you and me me? Why are you experiencing existence from your view point at this time in space? Why weren't you something or someone else somewhere else? Or anything or anywhere at all? Why are you experiencing now and not 1000 yrs ago or 10000 yrs from now. What determines who is who and when? I have a twin sister- born within minutes of each other- so why am I not my sister or her me? I could keep going but you get the picture by..

As philosophical as these questions sound, they can't be ignored. This is the hard problem of consciousness which science will have to try to figure out. All the stuff you've been citing are considered the easy problems.


Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I agree with a lot of what you say, and when I sit back and ponder about it, I arrive at the belief that there IS some kind of underlying property of the universe that causes awareness. I look at the universe as similar to one giant collective "organism" (really pool of linked energy) and what I see is constant change over time. Natural forces and evolution have enabled the universe to become self aware. From pure raw energy to conscious beings that can think critically. I believe we ARE the universe and the universe is us. You are me and I am you. The only problem is there isn't really any evidence of this view, much like ID and plenty of others. I'm on a quest to find that evidence one way or another which is why I'm so critical about those views (including my own), and why I end up reverting to science and demanding evidence 90% of the time.


It's interesting Barcs because I think along the very same lines that you do, for better or worse


I seem to take more leaps and stabs at it then you appear to, but that's all well and good. So I'll go a. and say that this underlying property (force? energy?) that you speak of is consciousness. I agree with the notion that the universe is self-aware and that we are the universe looking and reflecting back on itself in a way. I am my own consciousness but there is consciousness all around me that further validates my existence. I speculated in an earlier post that I view consciousness as a quantum field, that permeates all matter, down to the atoms that make it all up. And I think that as neuroscience starts to peel away the layers of what consciousness is, and delves deeper and deeper into how a neuron contributes to it, we may very well be referring to the wacky world of quantum mechanics... All speculation I concede....



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   


This was designed, right?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Human body

Eye-Brain

Cell

Golly I cant believe the similarities, can you mention some of the things those rocks are capable of achieving with their illusory mechanical design? Your sarcasm proves correct, you have convinced me nature cannot design.

"Rhino...I need some backup"- barcs
edit on 9-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros


This was designed, right?


According to the irish it was they said it was made by giants. So whos to argue with the irish they live there.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros


This was designed, right?


No it wasn't. I'm afraid you're employing the same tactic that Barcs did a page ago. We're not referring to the aesthetic qualities of erosional patterns. Nor even the aesthetic qualities of design for that matter.

We're talking about design from the standpoint of specific form and function; the organization of systems, and the complexity of those systems for the purpose of life.

Form. Function. Purpose. Life embodies all of these, as does design. And this is what I am referring to when talking about design in nature, which relates to the point I was making about biomimicry. Biomimicry is the science that recognizes this and it lends credence to the idea that all living things found in nature are designed. Not simply because it looks like it (subjective), but because we can identify and implement very specific processes and systems inherent in all living things that have been proven to work quite well in solving natures challenges (objective). No detail is spared. Nothing is wasted. A cell doesn't just look like a system; it IS a system. And it doesn't just appear to have function and purpose; it DOES have function and purpose. It is designed this way. There's nothing subjective about it and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.

We can say that evolution is responsible for this and that's perfectly fine. So why does evolution do it this way? And what I mean is, why is the purpose of evolution for adaptation, and ultimately survival? At all levels, life will self-organize and become more complex when the environment dictates, or, it won't. Maybe it will become less complex- but it's all for the same purpose. To keep life going.

People don't like to use the word "design" because it implies a cause that can't be proven or resides in a realm outside of what current science is neither willing nor able to entertain. But it doesn't change the fact that life is by design. Regardless of why, how, or by what.

I expect some kind of response suggesting that there's no rhyme or reason to life and that it's all just a bunch of random happenings, right?
edit on 9-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by rhinoceros


This was designed, right?


No it wasn't. I'm afraid you're employing the same tactic that Barcs did a page ago. We're not referring to the aesthetic qualities of erosional patterns. Nor even the aesthetic qualities of design for that matter.

We're talking about design from the standpoint of specific form and function; the organization of systems, and the complexity of those systems for the purpose of life.

Form. Function. Purpose. Life embodies all of these, as does design. And this is what I am referring to when talking about design in nature, which relates to the point I was making about biomimicry. Biomimicry is the science that recognizes this and it lends credence to the idea that all living things found in nature are designed. Not simply because it looks like it (subjective), but because we can identify and implement very specific processes and systems inherent in all living things that have been proven to work quite well in solving natures challenges (objective). No detail is spared. Nothing is wasted. A cell doesn't just look like a system; it IS a system. And it doesn't just appear to have function and purpose; it DOES have function and purpose. It is designed this way. There's nothing subjective about it and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.

We can say that evolution is responsible for this and that's perfectly fine. So why does evolution do it this way? And what I mean is, why is the purpose of evolution for adaptation, and ultimately survival? At all levels, life will self-organize and become more complex when the environment dictates, or, it won't. Maybe it will become less complex- but it's all for the same purpose. To keep life going.

People don't like to use the word "design" because it implies a cause that can't be proven or resides in a realm outside of what current science is neither willing nor able to entertain. But it doesn't change the fact that life is by design. Regardless of why, how, or by what.

I expect some kind of response suggesting that there's no rhyme or reason to life and that it's all just a bunch of random happenings, right?
edit on 9-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



No its not random at all lifes purpose is to survive to do so it must evolve and adapt to its surroundings. We see it every day problem is no evidence of an overseer at all. So since nature shows its more then capable of doing this on its own why do you expect someone to be pulling the strings so to speak. This is obviously just a personal belief and thats ok. But to science beliefs aren't in play they science wants to know why things are the way they are. So any scientist accepting the answer of god did it is not a true scientist. I guess on the plus side there no longer putting people to death for heresy or science would be in trouble.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 






I expect some kind of response suggesting that there's no rhyme or reason to life and that it's all just a bunch of random happenings, right?


Who told you that anyone thinks that nature develops life through arbitrary events?

The fact that chemistry is not at all random or arbitrary does not mean that it is intelligently guided. Mutation and natural selection are also not arbitrary...and do not require the interference or guidance of an intelligent agent.

I know that when ID proponents use words like "random" or "arbitrary" or "accident" are in reference to mutation. It's the whole tornado in a junkyard, utterly random, and that without some intelligent guiding force crap argument.

Mutations, while having a significant random element, are not purely arbitrary, and to describe them as such without qualifying the limits of that element is to describe mutation inaccurately.
Mutations are guided, simply not by an intelligent external actor.
Mutations are dependent on the laws of chemistry and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.




It is designed this way. There's nothing subjective about it and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.


Really?
Please post your proof of this designer or proof that life is designed.
Are you claiming that the existence of ordered systems, like the laws of physics, is evidence supporting an Intelligent Designer?




But it doesn't change the fact that life is by design. Regardless of why, how, or by what.


Do you have a hypothesis or working model that prove this fact of design? The demonstrable accuracy of a given hypothesis in comparison to alternative hypotheses is all that will matter.

The failure of your argument is not down to its lack of spin, but due to its lack of substance.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Name one thing that humans have intelligently designed.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Name one thing that humans have intelligently designed.


Our true ability, super ability I would say, is the ability to think in the abstract. This is what has pushed us forward and is what humans spend most of their time in. Just think of intelligence where nothing is thought of that does not already exist. That is the would of all other creatures here, but I would say that even your dinner you ate tonight was mostly an abstract thought. Everything around you that was human created was first created abstractedly.

This is what makes us different and why we live as we do, and why we have advanced over all other animals. Intelligence is just that, every creature has a level of it, but we just happen to have the most. We can apply this to speed and suggest that the cheetah since they are the fastest must have been created not of random evolution but had help just because they happen to be the fastest. We just happen to have the most brain power, ok this just means something will always be on the top.

The interesting thing with our brain is not so much its size as how much of our energy goes into it. About 1/3 of our energy is brain power and that is a ridiculous amount in the terms of what is really needed, but then look at us. We are slow and weak. As a carnivore we are truly bad, could not even win against the vast majority of herbivores if it came down to a naked man and the herbivore, but we just happen to be the most effective killing machine ever to evolve on the planet.

I just do not understand you question since everything you see around you was first created out of pure nothing and that is something just not seen in nature.



edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The point of my question was for him to name something he believed was intelligently designed by a human, and for me to say; no, that wasnt intelligent design, it was merely the laws of physics causing natural chemical reactions.

But I do appreciate your sincere and admirable reply.
edit on 10-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The point of my question was for him to name something he believed was intelligently designed by a human, and for me to say; no, that wasnt intelligent design, it was merely the laws of physics causing natural chemical reactions.

But I do appreciate your sincere and admirable reply.
edit on 10-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


LOL!


I need to get to work, but I'll be back later to show you how silly this argument is.
In the meantime this video will give you something to do.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
So much of what is often claimed to be evidence of divine design can be explained away in conventional terms as the product of the operation of purely physical laws and processes.

What, however, if objects that were supposed to represent God or to be His template because it embodies His nature in some abstract, geometrical way turned out to possess such astounding and mathematically beautiful properties and in such numbers that could not be due to chance, blind forces of nature or mechanical laws?

Suppose that the physical universe really is one of the levels of manifestation of God. Would not the very basic units of matter reflect His nature? But how would we recognise this, unless we also knew what that nature is?

If you want to discover the existence of transcendental design that cannot be scientifically explained away nor, indeed, explained in any rational way, study the research here. It presents evidence for the existence of a form of knowledge, or gnosis, that is BOTH religious and scientific because it represents the mathematics of the Mind of God applied to natural phenomena. This knowledge is not based upon theories and models (the way of science), nor on woolly religious dogmas that mean a hundred things to a hundred believers. Its truths are as demonstrable and exact as the proof of an axiom of Euclidean geometry.

Intelligence came first. That is the only possible explanation for the astounding discoveries on the website linked to above. The cosmic intelligence determining all levels of reality was abstractly captured many centuries ago in the sacred geometries of the world's religions by their mystics. Now, remarkably, these geometries have been shown to be isomorphic to one another despite their cultural origins being separated by thousands of miles and years. Not only that, these equivalent, cosmic blueprints have been shown to reproduce the mathematical discoveries of superstring theories, as well as to make predictions about its future development within the more general M-theory. Although religious in context, they generate the insights of theoretical physics.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Im looking forward to it! As far as I can tell, all that exists are subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chemicals, and the natural physical laws and forces which cause this material to react.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





The point of my question was for him to name something he believed was intelligently designed by a human, and for me to say; no, that wasnt intelligent design, it was merely the laws of physics causing natural chemical reactions.


This why your argument is silly.
We know intelligence exist cause, when we look away from your posts, we see it in other posts.
If we look at a biological cell, we do not see any intelligent cause manufacturing it.
If we look into steel mill, we see humans manufacturing steel, you would know that steel had an intelligent cause.
Can you name a single artificial object that occurs without an intelligent cause?
Are you seriously claiming that humans aren't intelligent?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

We know intelligence exist cause, when we look away from your posts, we see it in other posts.


hm ok, havent convinced me yet, not with that argument at least.




If we look into steel mill, we see humans manufacturing steel, you would know that steel had an intelligent cause.


I dont see the math, mind showing your work? How do you get from chemicals organizing minerals, to intelligent cause?




Can you name a single artificial object that occurs without an intelligent cause?


I cannot name a single artificial object.



Are you seriously claiming that humans aren't intelligent?


If you are claiming that nature does not intelligently design, then I am claiming that humans do not intelligently design.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 
Who told you that anyone thinks that nature develops life through arbitrary events?

Captain Ackbar, who cares. It's irrelevant who made the claim. Point is, that argument has taken on various forms in this thread and others in an attempt to discredit design found in nature. I already understand it's not an arbitrary process.


The fact that chemistry is not at all random or arbitrary does not mean that it is intelligently guided. Mutation and natural selection are also not arbitrary...and do not require the interference or guidance of an intelligent agent.

Non random. Not Arbitrary. Not guided? No purpose? Really?


Mutations, while having a significant random element, are not purely arbitrary, and to describe them as such without qualifying the limits of that element is to describe mutation inaccurately.
Mutations are guided, simply not by an intelligent external actor.
Mutations are dependent on the laws of chemistry and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.

Life is the guiding agent




It is designed this way. There's nothing subjective about it and it's not left open to one's own interpretation.

Really?
Please post your proof of this designer or proof that life is designed.
Are you claiming that the existence of ordered systems, like the laws of physics, is evidence supporting an Intelligent Designer?

Yes really. You want proof that life is designed? Go look in a mirror. Or go observe through a microscope how a cell functions. Or how a plant works. Or maybe the brain.
Form. Function. Purpose. Life. Design. Just observe.

But if you want to play the "show me the proof of design" game then fine;
Is this abacus designed? If so then please prove it:




Do you have a hypothesis or working model that prove this fact of design? The demonstrable accuracy of a given hypothesis in comparison to alternative hypotheses is all that will matter.

It's called evolution.


The failure of your argument is not down to its lack of spin, but due to its lack of substance.

Haha. Ok. That means nothing to me. So if it makes you feel better to say it, then that's cool and the gang.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
How? Where is the organized biological complexity in that picture of yours? You might as well be trying to convince people that the moon rock is just like the apple.

I'm not talking about design from an aesthetic aspect which is what you are doing with your example. In that sense, yes, the appearance of design is subjective.

I'm talking about design from the viewpoint of functionality. When we observe the complexity, functionality and order of something, this is not subjective. It either is or it isn't.

Start with a cell and its very specific structure and set of functions. I bet we could use the same words and terms to describe everything about a cell as we could with a factory or a city, and you might never be able to tell the difference. Now try to do that with your picture.


Okay, well the person that posted the original picture didn't give any details. He dropped a one liner about it looking designed to him. Not only is that a subjective opinion, but he also did not mention any requirements about biological functions. I was originally searching for the steps picture that Rhino posted, but couldn't find it so I went with the next best thing. My point was that appearance of design, does not prove intelligent design. Besides who's to say something has to be biological to have functionality? Look at the sun. It functions like a giant nuclear fusion reactor. It is not biological, yet it is incredibly complex and has functionality. Does that mean it was intelligently designed? No, it doesn't. It's just a subjective argument based on opinion, which is why I posted that picture. Appealing to the complexity of cells doesn't even come close to proving it was originally intelligently designed. How do you know that cells were originally that complex? People like to argue that it's impossible for something like DNA to suddenly arise, but the original DNA from the first organisms on earth could very well be simple and have gotten complex over time. We simply don't know, so to claim it indicates anything about intelligent design either way, is a giant leap in logic.

A strawman is a false definition of a word or concept that is intentionally set up to be easily refuted. That is not even close to what I did there. Appearance of design does not suggest an intelligent designer is necessary. I didn't falsely define anything. The dude didn't even make an argument about it he just appealed to appearance. Call it what you want but strawman is the wrong term.


Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So you think an asymmetrical erosion pattern looks designed, but the almost perfect geometric fractal pattern of the romanesco broccoli doesn't?


Yea... You can't really play the 'design is subjective' card when it comes to complex geometry. A bunch of uneven sediment isn't geometrical.


Yes you can. You can't prove that the geometry indicates anything beyond coincidence. You can't prove that symmetry means it was designed by an intelligent first cause. You are guessing because it's so complex. Unfortunately a guess is still a guess.


The essence of your experience of existence is consciousness and proves you are you. What was the determining factor that made you you and me me? Why are you experiencing existence from your view point at this time in space? Why weren't you something or someone else somewhere else? Or anything or anywhere at all? Why are you experiencing now and not 1000 yrs ago or 10000 yrs from now. What determines who is who and when? I have a twin sister- born within minutes of each other- so why am I not my sister or her me? I could keep going but you get the picture by..

It doesn't matter. None of that can be objectively proven. I can prove to myself that I am conscious. You can (probably) prove to yourself that you are conscious. You can't, however, prove it to me or any other person. That's why it doesn't indicate anything about ID. People just keep listing things that science doesn't fully know and claiming it proves the other side, but it does not. It's an appeal to ignorance and nothing more.



People don't like to use the word "design" because it implies a cause that can't be proven or resides in a realm outside of what current science is neither willing nor able to entertain. But it doesn't change the fact that life is by design. Regardless of why, how, or by what.


Design in itself is not intelligent design. You keep saying 'design' this and 'design' that but this thread is about an intelligent first cause. Design via evolution or erosion is NOT intelligent design and cannot be compared to it. That's the problem, people keep equivocating the 2 concepts when they are drastically different. This was the other point made by posting the steps picture. The steps WERE designed; just not intelligently. Arguing non intelligent design is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You might as well argue my case by bringing that up, because my argument is NOT that life wasn't designed. It's that it there is no evidence whatsoever that shows it was INTENTIONALLY and CONSCIOUSLY designed by an INTELLIGENT entity.


edit on 11-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Appealing to the complexity of cells doesn't even come close to proving it was originally intelligently designed. How do you know that cells were originally that complex? People like to argue that it's impossible for something like DNA to suddenly arise, but the original DNA from the first organisms on earth could very well be simple and have gotten complex over time. We simply don't know, so to claim it indicates anything about intelligent design either way, is a giant leap in logic.



"how do you know that cells were originally that complex"... Noone would be arguing that cells originated completely complex, just as noone would argue that human stories or homes burst into existence originally extremely complex.

How does something being simple and getting complex over time deny the existence of intelligence in anyway, when what you would deem intelligent designs do the same thing?

What is intelligence? Try to prove to me it exists, in what way does it exist?
edit on 11-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join