Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[tmonster]

Let's get it crackin'.


I'll get straight to the point with the following statements.

1) I believe everything on earth was created by a Master Designer, and further more I claim that is true.

Simple induction proof:

Let N be the set of all existing carbon based entities, sentient and non-sentient, both naturally occurring and man-made

Let the elements of N be ordered from the simplest carbon based molecular structure observable/unobservable to man to the most complex structure observable/unobservable to man

The zero element and the following sequence for the proof can be set arbitrarily in succession, for this process we will use wood based structures for this proof

Let N0 = walking cane, N1 = chair, N2 = cage, N3 = hut,...

We will subjectively show that for P(n) holds true for all elements in the set of n, specifically, that all elements in the set of P(n) is created by intelligent design, or mathetically, in terms of structural complexity, if P(n+1) > P(n), and P(n) was created by intelligent design, P(n+1) must also have been created by intelligent design, and b), we will show that P(n) is an additive function, ergo P(a+b) = P(a)+P(b)

2 part Basis step:

1)
P(0) = walking cane which can be subjectively deemed as a creation of intelligent design

P(1) = chair which can be subjectively deemed to be more complex than the walking cane

This holds true since the chair can be subjectively deemed to be a creation of intelligent design as well, thus it holds true P(1)>P(0)->P(1)eP(n), e meaning "element of"

2) Let a=1 and b = 0

P(a+b) = P(1+0) = P(1)

However from step one we know P(1)eP(n)

Thus P(1+0) = P(1) + P(0) logically, because both are elements in the set P(n), or basically both are elements created by intelligent design




Induction step:

P(n+1) =P(n+1)>P(n)->P(n+1)eP(n)

......P(n+1) = P(n+1+0)

......P(n+1+0) = P(n+1) + P(0)

.....P(n+1)>P(0)

....P(0)eP(n)--->P(n+1)eP(n) for all N

did any of y'all ready this? I don't think any of y'all read this
this thread should have never gone passed this post
basically
it states that because :man made chair and man is an intelligent designer then wood must have also been made by an intelligent designer
and everything in there is internally supported by subjective proofs filled with puffery

 

[blackzeus]

did any of y'all ready this? I don't think any of y'all read this
this thread should have never gone passed this post
basically
it states that because :man made chair and man is an intelligent designer then wood must have also been made by an intelligent designer
and everything in there is internally supported by subjective proofs filled with puffery

No it doesn't, it states that if we subjectively know a walking cane is a product of intelligent design, and the chair is more complex than the walking cane, then the chair also must have been made by intelligent design. It's about varying degrees of complexity, not the designer, please don't twist the argument.

 

[blackzeus]

The only basis I'm approaching this on is that you say there are no assumptions in ID but why is it called Intelligent Design when there's no designer? Are you saying there's no designer? If you're saying there may be a designer then isn't that an assumption?

Is there another option I've missed:

There is no designer.
There may be a designer.
There is a designer.

What camp does ID fall into?

None of them on a scientific basis. ID simply states "intelligent design". You are making inferences that are philosophical, not scientific.

 

[noon]

No it doesn't, it states that if we know a walking cane is a product of intelligent design, and the chair is more complex than the walking cane, then the chair also must have been made by intelligent design. It's about varying degrees of complexity, not the designer, please don't twist the argument.

No, we know the chair is a product of intelligent design in the same way that we know the cane is. Not because "the chair is more complex so it must be". We have evidence of both being designed. That's another assumption in this assumptionless "theory".

 

[noon]

None of them on a scientific basis. ID simply states "intelligent design". You are making inferences that are philosophical, not scientific.

"None of them" is not an option. Scientifically or otherwise. You have to choose one.

 

[blackzeus]

No, we know the chair is a product of intelligent design in the same way that we know the cane is. Not because "the chair is more complex so it must be". We have evidence of both being designed. That's another assumption in this assumptionless "theory".

1) That's all fine and dandy you know for sure the chair was a product of intelligent design, THAT'S WHY IT'S THE BASE STEP!!!! that wasn't the intent of the proof. The intent of the proof was to subjectively show that if we compare complexities, then the comparison we make between two elements must be true for the entire set. In science we start with what we know is true, and extrapolate from there.

2) Please note use of the word "subjectively". That means within a frame of reference, or "logically". I can subjectively show that E^X trends towards infinity, but I can't prove it, because infinity is a concept, not a number, same like complexity. Please let's not expose our ignorance here, no ad hominem.

3) The theory is not assumptionless, you are assuming MORE than what the theory is stating on a scientific basis, I've already said that more than once.

 

[blackzeus]

"None of them" is not an option. Scientifically or otherwise. You have to choose one.

You can't dictate that a theory states something it's not saying breh. The theory states "The world exist by intelligent design". You can't say, "well that's the same thing as saying there is a God-like designer", because that's not what the theory says!!!

 

[noon]

You can't dictate that a theory states something it's not saying breh. The theory states "The world exist by intelligent design". You can't say, "well that's the same thing as saying there is a God-like designer", because that's not what the theory says!!!

Look, I didn't call it Intelligent Design. Tell me why it's called Intelligent Design. Are you inferring a designer?

 

[noon]

The theory is not assumptionless,

ID doesn't assume anything

 

[blackzeus]

Look, I didn't call it Intelligent Design. Tell me why it's called Intelligent Design. Are you inferring a designer?

it's called "ID" because the design exudes intelligence by any standard known to man. Your skeletal structure is an engineering marvel breh. It's 2014 and we still don't know all there is to know about the world, what should we call it, "mediocre design"?

 

[blackzeus]

Context breh, context C'mon man, you're better than this, your average journalist knows better than to do sh*t like pull phrases out of context to represent the message of the speaker, you're a f*ckin' scientist (I assume), do better breh

 

[noon]

it's called "ID" because the design exudes intelligence by any standard known to man. Your skeletal structure is an engineering marvel breh. It's 2014 and we still don't know all there is to know about the world, what should we call it, "mediocre design"?

It's not the Intelligent part I'm talking about, it's the Design part. Why's it called Intelligent Design?

 

[noon]

Context breh, context C'mon man, you're better than this, your average journalist knows better than to do sh*t like pull phrases out of context to represent the message of the speaker, you're a f*ckin' scientist (I assume), do better breh

Everyone's free to go back and see your posts in full context. I'm not stopping anyone.

 

[Mission249]

In the strictest scientific sense, we can't assume the empirical data suggests a DESIGNER, we can only assume it suggests DESIGN. In a logical sense, a design implies a designer, but we are discussing ID as a scientific theory, not as a philosophy. It's important to make the distinction.

If it works logically then it works scientifically. Don't back away from that aspect of the argument. Design implies designer. If your definition of this well established word does not, then what semantically distinguishes this "design" from evolution? Why not just call it evolution?

did any of y'all ready this? I don't think any of y'all read this
this thread should have never gone passed this post
basically
it states that because :man made chair and man is an intelligent designer then wood must have also been made by an intelligent designer
and everything in there is internally supported by subjective proofs filled with puffery

Yep, I've been seeing it since the beginning. It's why his whole argument falls apart. I call it "blackzeus math". Define an arbitrary, vague human-centric, individual perception of "complexity" that means nothing to a universe that deals with light-years and atoms. Inject this unquantifiable non-sense into some legitimate, but simple mathematical induction. Attack all attempts at defining terms as "lawyering" instead of being scientific and precise. Then base your whole argument on that.

At best he's just ignorant to how the scientific method works, at worst he's reveling in the vagueness and handwavy-ness of his argument in order to do his usually equivocating, hand-waving, and goal-post moving. Case in point, I link him to a brief, really insightful video about how the "design" isn't really intelligent, and looks exactly how evolution theorized it would look. His response is basically: "Weelllll....it's not THAT intelligent :shrugs:"



How intelligent is it? Enough for him to win the debate and rationalize his pre-existing beliefs I suppose.

 

[blackzeus]

It's not the Intelligent part I'm talking about, it's the Design part. Why's it called Intelligent Design?

Because order is by design