Re: I think that I accidentally broke intelligent design today.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I was writing a paper today that involved intelligent design theory, and I started thinking about Kant's writing. Kant wrote that we find beauty in nature when there seems to be a purpose to it ("purposiveness"😉. He continues, however, by saying that purposiveness does not necessarily mean that it was created with a purpose--it just appears that way because we, as humans, create things with a purpose.I started thinking about this and the idea of IDT as an anthropic principle, and it came to me:
What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?
I read this book about "Constructing a Universe" and it detailed common patterns found in nature and in the wider universe.
It showed how hurricanes, tornadoes, and galaxies have a common structure to eachother. It even showed how galaxies have a similar structure to atoms.
It showed how prevalent number and shape is, how mathematics is involved in the structure of all things. Certian numbers, shapes, and patterns are repeated through all natural structures, such as bee hives, flowers, vegatables, pine cones, trees, rocks, etc.
IT definately made me think that Intelligent Design is entirely possible.
Now, Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily prove or validate the existance of the Christian God, but it certainly implies that there is some creator.
And if not, then in my opinion, it supports the notion that the Universe itself is Intelligent.
I think it is stupid to conclude that it is all just coincidence.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
KMC reaches new heights of intellectual discourse.
It's amazing how everyone is stupid, but you.
Kant was wrong. Humans create things with no purpose all the time. Or, at the very least, no purpose that applies to everyone. He takes an intellectually ambigious stance on a lot of his conclusions. Talk about absolutes.
Also, what's the converse of this:
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
and the things we've created have evolved, along with how we use them and why we use them.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolactually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved". And yes, having a theory of evolution does probably make people try to conform observation to the theory (people will ask how a novel thing evolved, not if). I'd say it conformation bias.
However, I don't think that effects the validity of evolutionary theory, just yet another example of why our brains our inadequate to understand truth.
I like this statement. There's probably a lot of truth to it.
But I don't think people with a true understanding of evolution will look at man-made constructs and try to find evolution. Man-made things are designed. But it's perfectly reasonable to look to nature and try to find evolution.
The problem comes with an inadequate understanding of either evolution or a belief in ID, which messes with all sorts of logical parameters. Most people tacitly accept evolution but couldn't describe its basic principles if needed. Others (and I find this to be common) will say "yeah, I believe in evolution, but why couldn't God have made evolution?" without realizing what it is that they're saying...it's ID on a basic, simpler level, and is the the usually-intelligent but misinformed base of people that ID gets its advocates from.
And those comments aren't aimed at Zeus, despite the opening post being hard to understand. They're more a critique of society.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I read this book about "Constructing a Universe" and it detailed common patterns found in nature and in the wider universe.It showed how hurricanes, tornadoes, and galaxies have a common structure to eachother. It even showed how galaxies have a similar structure to atoms.
It showed how prevalent number and shape is, how mathematics is involved in the structure of all things. Certian numbers, shapes, and patterns are repeated through all natural structures, such as bee hives, flowers, vegatables, pine cones, trees, rocks, etc.
IT definately made me think that Intelligent Design is entirely possible.
Now, Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily prove or validate the existance of the Christian God, but it certainly implies that there is some creator.
And if not, then in my opinion, it supports the notion that the [b]Universe itself
is Intelligent.I think it is stupid to conclude that it is all just coincidence. [/B]
This is confirmation bias at its most mainstream, since it's supposedly intelligent scientists behind the findings.
But you can find patterns everywhere. And when you make your canvas the entire physical universe, you'll be able to pull such coincidences out of it that it will seem impossible that it wasn't designed. But it is possible, simply because the book will never bother to list the literally incalcuable number of non-coincidences in the physical universe, nor extrapolate on the ones they cite to reach any justifiable conclusions. Look at these unbelievable similarities....so, um, there must be a Creator! Really?? To me, it's a large leap of logic.
Beyond that, patterns will exist simply because there are stable states at which things can exist, whether it's the motion of planetary bodies or the workings of an atom. Any similarity is probably more due to the uniformity of the laws of chemistry and physics than it is to some divine creator.
And to refute your last comment, I'd say it's stupid to assume it's not coincidence unless we have clear evidence to believe otherwise, because of the large number of rational explanations for any of it (some of which I've detailed) and the ridiculous confirmation bias present to attempt to justify it in a cosmically important sense.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is confirmation bias at its most mainstream, since it's supposedly intelligent scientists behind the findings.
This is not a book which claims that the universe is intelligently designed. It is a book composed of the studies of scientists and mathematicians who have collectively discovered, not only patterns in nature and in the universe, but similiar structures in every item imaginable.
I can't explain the book, because I haven't read it in its entirety. It focuses on numbers and shapes, then applies them to things found in nature. It also discusses how architects take designs and "blue prints" from nature to create what they do.
To explain it better, there are "formulas" which go into creating all that which is created. They are based on shape and number, primarily (obviously chemistry and biology come into the equation later).
I don't have the book on me now, its a book that I borrowed from a professor, but when I look at it again, I will tell u the title and author, so you can check it out yourself.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But you can find patterns everywhere. And when you make your canvas the entire physical universe, you'll be able to pull such coincidences out of it that it will seem impossible that it wasn't designed. But it is possible, simply because the book will never bother to list the literally incalcuable number of non-coincidences in the physical universe, nor extrapolate on the ones they cite to reach any justifiable conclusions. Look at these unbelievable similarities....so, um, there must be a Creator! Really?? To me, it's a large leap of logic.
The fact that you can find patterns everywhere is exactly my point. The fact that there are patterns means that everything is interdependent. What I mean is that nothing exists on its own, completely different and original from all else. There is repetition of design in almost all things. Everything that exists seems to follow some common formula.
For example, a hurricane from the top view looks like a galaxy from the top view. The book discusses how the spiral is a prevalent design found in nature, and its significance.
When you said non-coincidenses, can you please give an example ? I don't understand what you are trying to reference.
And no, Like I said before, intelligent design, much less pattern, does not validate the existance of a God, or necessarily a creator.
What i personally beleive is that the Universe itself is intelligent. This may sound cliche, but I beleive that we living things exist, because that is a way the Universe becomes aware of itself. The Universe is not good or evil, it just is, and it sees itself through our eyes and experiences.
That agian, is just my belief.
But I don't think Intelligent design is a crock of shit anymore. Evolution is an intelligent design.
I mean look at the universe..remember there are quasars, binary stars, different types of galaxies and star clusters, many wierd and abstract repetitions that we do not yet understand.
But they are there. I don't think the universe just farted out of existance for no reason, nor do I beleive that existance is a coincidense. That, again, sounds stupid to me.
The universe is FAR too complicated to have just popped out of existance with no cause or reason.
And if you beleive that the universe did infact, pop out of existance, with no cause or reason, then I beleive that is stupid on your part.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Beyond that, patterns will exist simply because there are stable states at which things can exist, whether it's the motion of planetary bodies or the workings of an atom. Any similarity is probably more due to the uniformity of the laws of chemistry and physics than it is to some divine creator.
But there IS an ORDER. You can't deny that.
There is universal organization. There is chaos as well, but there is order nonetheless. To me, it seems reasonable to conclude that perhaps the universe itself has its own intelligence. Perhaps an intelligence that we cannot fully understand or relate to (because we are limitted).
To me, that is the closest thing to God.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And to refute your last comment, I'd say it's stupid to assume it's not coincidence unless we have clear evidence to believe otherwise, because of the large number of rational explanations for any of it (some of which I've detailed) and the ridiculous confirmation bias present to attempt to justify it in a cosmically important sense.
You have no evidense to conclude that the existance of the entire universe and all its patterns are mere coincidense either 👇
And it seems extremely illogical to me to justs conclude such a thing. That as complex as the universe is, there is no order, and that the universe exists as a coincidental mistake that just happened for no reason, with no cause, and we are just lucky to exist today.
And if you wish to speak of things "cosmically important", then the Universe certainly implies.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonActually, he didn't even comment on it. Then you made dumb comment that had nothing to do with anything...
I had the exact thought that Alliance had. I think the only clear point that Zeal Ex Nihilo made was that he has no understanding of what evolution is, and what it’s not.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
Why should we/what would be the purpose in doing so? A toaster, computer or Honda Civic is far different than a living organism.
As noted by DK, human made objects do evolve in a sense, a 2007 Ford Focus is far advanced to a 1908 Ford Model T, but it's "evolution" doesn't compare to a living organism. A Model T's offspring didn't "evolve/mutate" into a Focus and were better adapted to survive in changing enviroment. Comparing the two is faulty.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
This is not a book which claims that the universe is intelligently designed. It is a book composed of the studies of scientists and mathematicians who have collectively discovered, not only patterns in nature and in the universe, but similiar structures in every item imaginable.I can't explain the book, because I haven't read it in its entirety. It focuses on numbers and shapes, then applies them to things found in nature. It also discusses how architects take designs and "blue prints" from nature to create what they do.
To explain it better, there are "formulas" which go into creating all that which is created. They are based on shape and number, primarily (obviously chemistry and biology come into the equation later).
I don't have the book on me now, its a book that I borrowed from a professor, but when I look at it again, I will tell u the title and author, so you can check it out yourself.
So, in essence, nature is wonderful, and has many interesting and useful forms, some of which form patterns with other aspects of the universe. Ok, conceded. The next step, the meaning you ascribe to it all, is the problem I have, because it isn't based on scientific patterns, it's based on unrelated belief.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The fact that you can find patterns everywhere is exactly my point. The fact that there [b]are patterns means that everything is interdependent. What I mean is that nothing exists on its own, completely different and original from all else. There is repetition of design in almost all things. Everything that exists seems to follow some common formula.For example, a hurricane from the top view looks like a galaxy from the top view. The book discusses how the spiral is a prevalent design found in nature, and its significance. [/B]
You're outlining causality. Everything is interdependent....ok, cool. No argument here. Again, you're taking perfectly rational, physical phenomenon and acting like it justifies universal sentience.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
When you said non-coincidenses, can you please give an example ? I don't understand what you are trying to reference.
You mentioned everything following a same "common formula". Exactly. The laws of physics, chemistry, and evolution all worked together to form the universe as it is. The formation of planetary bodies, the evolution of sentient life, etc. etc. can all be described using these means. Any patterns to be found are simply because the laws of physics are the same universally, and will naturally create patterns and parallels because you're working with the same building blocks, whether it's galaxies or hurricanes, atoms or planets. It doesn't point to intelligence, just uniformity of physical laws.
As for the non-coincidences, I'm referring to any number of physical phenomenon that don't have parallels to each other. But if you read a book about all the coincidences (we experiences coincidences every day of our lives, some very profound...then take the entire universe and you'll find some grand coincidences that seem to have significance) you'll soon start thinking as if there's something greater going on.
But it would make a boring book: "Well, the motion of electrons around an atom isn't anything like the forces that create a tornado because..." then do that a few trillion times, and you wouldn't even be touching the surface. If you notice the "hits", or coincidences, and ignore the "misses" (our minds are great at doing this, which has an evolutionary basis as well) it's easy to fall into any number of beliefs. It's the same logical fallacy that leads people to believing in psychics.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And no, Like I said before, intelligent design, much less pattern, does not validate the existance of a God, or necessarily a creator.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What i personally beleive is that the Universe itself is intelligent. This may sound cliche, but I beleive that we living things exist, because that is a way the Universe becomes aware of itself. The Universe is not good or evil, it just is, and it sees itself through our eyes and experiences.That agian, is just my belief.
I won't challenge your belief, which is fine, but I fail to see how it's applicable to our discussion of physical patterns. I simply don't see the connection (though I'm sure you do) and I see it as a huge logical leap that you're entitled to have but isn't rationally justifiable.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The universe is FAR too complicated to have just popped out of existance with no cause or reason.
You just hit the nail on the head. Yes, the universe is unfathomably complicated. And this should be all the more reason to believe that it is a simple, unassuming, and certainly not intelligent, cause behind it. Christians see a complex universe and create an infinitely-more-complex Creator to make it, not realizing the logical flaw. The same holds true for a presumably complex universal sentience that "sees itself through our eyes". Only simple building blocks could eventually form the universe, and positing a complex origin of it only complicates the matter and creates a logical paradox of regressive causality.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And if you beleive that the universe did infact, pop out of existance, with no cause or reason, then I beleive that is stupid on your part.
I believe that non-existence is a physically unstable state (it is), that quantum particles appeared out of nothingness (much as they do in the observable quantum leaps made by electrons around an atom, where matter is literally created and destroyed depening on which way the particle shifts), and eventually those particles gained number and coelesced into microscopic matter, and over an incalcuable amount of time the Big Bang singularity was formed.
This is only one of various plausible explanations for the origin of the universe from logical and simple means (this one, and others, are outlined in many of Stephen Hawking's books). So am I stupid? No. I have justified reasons for thinking you're wrong, even if I myself am wrong (I make no claims to infallibility).
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But there [b]IS an ORDER. You can't deny that.There is universal organization. There is chaos as well, but there is order nonetheless. To me, it seems reasonable to conclude that perhaps the universe itself has its own intelligence. Perhaps an intelligence that we cannot fully understand or relate to (because we are limitted).
To me, that is the closest thing to God. [/B]
You can define God sufficiently that no one can deny it. Einstein believed in "God", but his god was the physical wonder of the universe, not an anthropomorphic deity or sentience. So I won't argue semantic points with that.
But yeah, there's order. It's the physical constants and rules of the universe I outlined earlier. They elucidate how order can come to the universe without need for a sentience or intelligence.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You have no evidense to conclude that the existance of the entire universe and all its patterns are mere coincidense either 👇And it seems extremely illogical to me to justs conclude such a thing. That as complex as the universe is, there is no order, and that the universe exists as a coincidental mistake that just happened for no reason, with no cause, and we are just lucky to exist today.
And if you wish to speak of things "cosmically important", then the Universe certainly implies.
Well, ignoring the fact that yours is the more outlandish claim, and thus carries the burden of proof, I'll bite.
This seems similar (to me) to the ID arguments of "If you believe in evolution, you believe that a 747 jet can be created by throwing plane parts into a tornado and pieced together by it." Coincidences are the patterns we perceive, but it doesn't mean there isn't an order behind it. Evolution, for example, isn't blind luck or chance...specific physical laws create an environment where complexity can come from simplicity. The same holds true for the formation of galaxies and planets, and literally everything in the universe as well. If I thought it was luck or chance that created us, I'd be an ID advocate as well, or perhaps agreeing with you about universal sentience.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
Perhaps we hsould look at both as opposed to subscribing to stupid archtypes which is what started this abomination of science religion and democracy in the first place?
Originally posted by inimalist
Didn't Socrates say that?lol, the benchmark of an open mind
😆
Oh look...i found similarities...it MUST MEAN SOMETHING.
Which is the root of ID ignorance. The only thing that means somehting is causality. If there is no causality, the most truthful answer is coincidence.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But I don't think Intelligent design is a crock of shit anymore. Evolution is an intelligent design.
wow...you really stepped in quick sand.
Apparently there IS a natural order after all.