Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[NoMayo15]

So let me get this straight, creationists tried to graft their theory with that of ID, so that their message could continue in public schools, and somehow that's ID's fault?

My question is how does one determine the probability that this universe was intelligently designed? What are you comparing the non-designed universe probability to?

Surely you're not arguing that since it might take, let's say, 7 billion years for a non-designed universe, and... oh I don't know, 7 days for a designed universe to come into being, then it's more likely that the universe was designed? I don't want to misunderstand your position, so please clear that up for me. That's what it seemed like you were saying with the laptop analogy.

Also, pigs CAN fly under the right conditions.

 

[blackzeus]

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski, creationist and "Intelligent Design" proponent

@VMR you see what I mean breh? @Hollywood Hogan , please read posts #13 and #36, I already reviewed this

 

[blackzeus]

My question is how does one determine the probability that this universe was intelligently designed? What are you comparing the non-designed universe probability to?

Surely you're not arguing that since it might take, let's say, 7 billion years for a non-designed universe, and... oh I don't know, 7 days for a designed universe to come into being, then it's more likely that the universe was designed? I don't want to misunderstand your position, so please clear that up for me. That's what it seemed like you were saying with the laptop analogy.

Also, pigs CAN fly under the right conditions.

1) To keep it 100, one can only determine the probability that a cause is not a chance occurrence. E.g. I can determine that if 9 billion people jumped up 10 inches in the air at the same time, that the probability that this was a chance occurrence is virtually equivalent to 0. However, I can't conclude they jumped as a result of intelligent design. Probability is not indicative of intelligent design, complexity is. However, probability can let you know the odds of a certain complexity being the result of chance or the result of thought. There is only chaos and order, there is no other, so like it or not, if the odds are that it wasn't by accident, then the odds are it was by design

2) ID makes no pretense as to claim the procedures or timespan in which the earth was created. It could have been created in 7 seconds, or 7 billion years, neither of which are relevant to ID. Again, for the umpteenth time, ID states and only states that the universe as we know it was created by intelligent design, nothing more, nothing less

3) In what conditions can pigs self-propel themselves into an extended airborne state? That's cool as f*ck if that's true

EDIT: Daps and pos rep for your constructive posting Please note I only claim what I believe, and I claim that I believe it to be true. I don't claim I know everything, just so we can all be on the same page

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Dis thread.

 

[blackzeus]

What are you comparing the non-designed universe probability to?

Sorry, missed this part. If you read my laptops parts post, you would have noticed we START with the assumption that something is created by chance. To assume something is created by a divine order is arrogant. ID is a result of empirical data. I can't tell you who you are, you have to tell me who you are, that is the scientific method. So we start by assuming nothing, then from there do the observation, run the probabilities, and come to a logical conclusion. ID doesn't ask you to believe that the universe was created by design, ID says the empirical data points to the logical conclusion that the universe was created by design

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

They mock you for believing in the statistically improbable, and at the same time mock you for believing in the statistically probable. And then claim they are not part of a religion

How do you know whats statistically improbable?

This is what you don't understand.

A lot of chemical reactions are "statistically improbable"...(when in the context of our base-10 number system and attention to percentages) but they happen all the time under the RIGHT conditions.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

post: 11527467, member: 2400"]@VMR you see what I mean breh? @Hollywood Hogan , please read posts #13 and #36, I already reviewed this[/QUOTE]

@VMR you see what I mean breh? @Hollywood Hogan , please read posts #13 and #36, I already reviewed this

The concept can be ambiguous due to its many connotations. I went over that with @Mission249 once my discussion with him lead me towards believing that ID may not be the best label for what my stance was due to conceptual differences and/or because of what the general perception of what the term Intelligent Design implies (also due to the differences you pointed out in regards to evolution). Its a logical and fair assumption based on its name and its introduction to the curriculums in modern history as a slick way to use it as a euphemism for Creationism/Traditional Theology with scientific jargon.

I suggested to let the thread breathe then source accordingly after but it may have been better to not even use the ID label in the first place. Idk. Im bowing out regardless unless i get a response to my useless philosophy.

 

[blackzeus]

How do you know whats statistically improbable?

This is what you don't understand.

A lot of chemical reactions are "statistically improbable"...(when in the context of our base-10 number system and attention to percentages) but they happen all the time under the RIGHT conditions.

I already responded to this same statement the last time you posted it

A hurricane is not statistically probable, but it happens all the time under the right conditions, and we can predict with relative accuracy when a hurricane will occur. So what you are saying is that is something that is statistically probable under certain conditions = statistically improbable, that my friend is semantics, and more in tune with the philosophical discussion @Mission249 and @VMR were having about a fine tuned universe. When something is statistically improbable, it's statistically improbable under any condition. Pigs flying is statistically improbable under any condition, electrolyzing non iodized salt to create sodium hydroxide (soap) is not. Those situations are not analagous

 

[blackzeus]

post: 11527467, member: 2400"]@VMR you see what I mean breh? @Hollywood Hogan , please read posts #13 and #36, I already reviewed this

post: 11527467, member: 2400"]
The concept can be ambiguous due to its many connotations. I went over that with @Mission249 once my discussion with him lead me towards believing that ID may not be the best label for what my stance was due to conceptual differences and/or because of what the general perception of what the term Intelligent Design implies (also due to the differences you pointed out in regards to evolution). Its a logical and fair assumption based on its name and its introduction to the curriculums in modern history as a slick way to use it as a euphemism for Creationism/Traditional Theology with scientific jargon.

I suggested to let the thread breathe then source accordingly after but it may have been better to not even use the ID label in the first place. Idk. Im bowing out regardless unless i get a response to my useless philosophy.

Well you took it a little far My point was simply that you told me not to post so much but yet again the first few pages serve as an excellent reference point for many of the common arguments against ID. It saddens me that you feel this thread not worthy of your time, you were giving positive contributions to the debate

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I already responded to this same statement the last time you posted it

Again, this is false.

Hurricane prediction relies on a smaller set of variables...creating "everything"...doesn't.

Even further, you don't get to keep misusing the very statistical tools in place to prevent this sort of distraction.

You're abstracting too much

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Let's just agree to disagree breh, you're a broken tape recorder right now. Statistical improbability = lack of ability to understand now?

Whats improbable about life in the right conditions, dumbass?

 

[blackzeus]

Again, this is false.

Hurricane prediction relies on a smaller set of variables...creating "everything"...doesn't.

Even further, you don't get to keep misusing the very statistical tools in place to prevent this sort of distraction.

You're abstracting too much

But you didn't say "everything", you used a chemical reaction as an example, and I gave you the counter example of a hurricane. Please explain how I am misusing frequentist statistics o great one

 

[blackzeus]

Whats improbable about life in the right conditions, dumbass?

Nothing, what's improbable is that those right conditions happened by chance Herr Emperor

 

[NoMayo15]

1) To keep it 100, one can only determine the probability that a cause is not a chance occurrence. E.g. I can determine that if 9 billion people jumped up 10 inches in the air at the same time, that the probability that this was a chance occurrence is virtually equivalent to 0. However, I can't conclude they jumped as a result of intelligent design. Probability is not indicative of intelligent design, complexity is. However, probability can let you know the odds of a certain complexity being the result of chance or the result of thought. There is only chaos and order, there is no other, so like it or not, if the odds are that it wasn't by accident, then the odds are it was by design

Okay, so we agree we can't know. The problem I see is how you can suppose one option is more likely than the other when you have no idea how likely both occurrences are? Would you not agree that some observed order could come about without some guiding entity ... regardless of how rare or unlikely it is?

3) In what conditions can pigs self-propel themselves into an extended airborne state?

If the force keeping the pig on the ground was negated or removed, then for all intents and purposes the pig would fly. Again, under the right conditions.

Sorry, missed this part. If you read my laptops parts post, you would have noticed we START with the assumption that something is created by chance. To assume something is created by a divine order is arrogant. ID is a result of empirical data. I can't tell you who you are, you have to tell me who you are, that is the scientific method. So we start by assuming nothing, then from there do the observation, run the probabilities, and come to a logical conclusion. ID doesn't ask you to believe that the universe was created by design, ID says the empirical data points to the logical conclusion that the universe was created by design

I'm confused. You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying, in the earlier example, you would start by assuming laptops were created by chance ... but with the scientific method you start by assuming nothing. Maybe there was a typo there.

But if ID is saying what you seem to be saying, then it's not reaching a logical conclusion. It's jumping to a conclusion. You're saying that if one proposed answer is improbable, then the alternative must necessarily be true. That complexity implies design, therefore it was designed. What's scientific about that?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Nothing, what's improbable is that those right conditions happened by chance Herr Emperor

See, this is false.

Light active compounds, reacting to sunlight from geothermal vents creating the building blocks of molecules including amino acids of different chirality might result in functional proteins over TRILLIONS of chances of trial and error

Even further, this is like saying the mutation between strains of viruses that jump between species is also "impossible"...until it fukking happens.