Theism

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


OK coppertop, let's hear it.

I would think that a a directed eveloution would have to be able to pre-adapt to mass extinctions. I suppose a "creator" could have gotten tired of dinosaurs before creating them only to destroy them. What would be the purpose of intelligent design starting with simple organisms and have any dynamic flow when that omniscient being couls have just skipped to the end? Why not create an ecosystem where all creatures were at the peak of adaptability and the height of whatever could come from natural selection.The creation design seed would imply some asthetic desire to "observe" the process, further anthropomorphising the concept.

I would have thought that you'd have more imagination. "Skip to the final product"?? What makes you think the final product is a known quantity? Who said anything about an omniscient designer? You are obviously letting your anti-theistic tendancies narrow you into conservative arguments.

There could be a "single" designer- and he could be omniscient- but it would involve a complex explination of time differential and the method used to "produce" the answers needed for omniscience- in other words, we're merely a doodle on a cosmic scratch sheet, where the gods are trying to split the bill for lunch... or the single designer is calculating the tip.

Here's a lovely little thought I entertain myself with- suppose the universe is merely a computing device- that uses genetic algorythms, to compute a solution to a problem. In that case, for us, the more important thing to know wouldn't be what is the final solution, but what was the question in the first place?

(Shades of Douglas Adams)

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf

* groan*

I also think that there is a false assumptation of prefectly designed organisms

Think again. You people are rather limited in your arguments. OR, you haven't bothered to listen to what I'm saying, and are assuming I'm saying the same old tired crap.

I'm not speaking about "perfectly designed organisms" Or even for that matter, a single organism per se.

I'm talking about process, and use of process for calculation.

What, you guys aren't assuming I'm speaking strictly to monotheism are you? Or even a singular deity that is omnipotent and omniscient (which I can argue convincingly are impossible in a metaphysical sense - near omniscience and near omnipotence are a different matter however)

If you're really an atheist, as opposed to a anti-(mono)theist, you should have some ready arguments against some of the non conventional views.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
I would have thought that you'd have more imagination. "Skip to the final product"?? What makes you think the final product is a known quantity? Who said anything about an omniscient designer? You are obviously letting your anti-theistic tendancies narrow you into conservative arguments.

No final product... exactly my point. Intelligent design requires some goal, and not just adaptability and increased complexity. Then the design would necessarily need to include faulty designs for fails species and non-adating species. And again, this is a poiintless act. A T-Rex is just a typo that was cleared in advance of being entered? I prefer narrow arguements because there is eventually some conclusion. If we are day tripping I can think of numerous scenarious completely unfounded in any fact of concept relating to any discussion. The pink elephants created the universes. Then what?

Since you haven't really provided any solid framework for discussion I can really only resort to what theist principles currently exist. You may have a secret "designer" in mind but have yet to link it to our existance or evolution or theism.

I know it's fun for you to be vague and ambiguous, so go right ahead. In the mean time you shouldn't denigrate my imagination until you reveal your delusions of a single creator to us blind folks.

There could be a "single" designer- and he could be omniscient- but it would involve a complex explination of time differential and the method used to "produce" the answers needed for omniscience- in other words, we're merely a doodle on a cosmic scratch sheet, where the gods are trying to split the bill for lunch... or the single designer is calculating the tip.

Yes, I thought of that one once after skipping gym class ...and you poke fun at my imagination? This is meaningless. Because some super entity farted after lunch means we should worship it? Amusing really...

Here's a lovely little thought I entertain myself with- suppose the universe is merely a computing device- that uses genetic algorythms, to compute a solution to a problem. In that case, for us, the more important thing to know wouldn't be what is the final solution, but what was the question in the first place?

(Shades of Douglas Adams)

You're too easily entertained. The final solution to the equation is 42.

Now, what was the point of this discussion again? Oh, that's right, it's pointless. In that case, please continue.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

No final product... exactly my point. Intelligent design requires some goal, and not just adaptability and increased complexity.

Err.. no. I didn't say there was no final product. The final product may be a calculation, or other abstract that we are incapable of understanding from a limited perspective. Or it may well be a "physical" product. However the design goal isn't something that's going to be readily apparant. Just how much of the entire program structure does an individual bit come into contact with?

Then the design would necessarily need to include faulty designs for fails species and non-adating species. And again, this is a poiintless act. A T-Rex is just a typo that was cleared in advance of being entered?

Know anything about parallel computing? Most definately such "errors" would arise. It's an inescapable process in the elimination of different permutations.... Not to mention that I thought you were aware that archosaurs are alive and well, as avians and other assorted descendants.

I find it odd that you should try to use this as an argument for non-direction. As with any process, directed or non-directed, there are quite often by-products and waste. In other words, I think this point is just poo.

I prefer narrow arguements because there is eventually some conclusion. If we are day tripping I can think of numerous scenarious completely unfounded in any fact of concept relating to any discussion. The pink elephants created the universes. Then what?

Then you need to theorize a plausible mechanism, that doesn't contradict known physics. Mine should be fairly clear, although if it's not, I'll just spell it out to you to simplify matters.

An unspecified entitiy or entities (since it doesn't really matter for the purposes of discussion) with near omnipotence and omniscience (whether in this created realm or infinity at large and individually or as a group- it doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion) reached an impasse on answering a particular question or point. So they set up a calculation inside a time/space bubble, setting the parameters to particular constants.

Whether or not these entities observe, or merely await the outcome, whether or not they have included freewill or predestination, an absolute moral standard, or an afterlife, is totally and completely immaterial to the discussion of intelligent design.

The only point I'm particularly interested in, is can evolution (i.e. selection/elimination of non-solutions) be used as a viable computing tool. Well, we both know that it can, and that it is a particularly powerful one.

Since you haven't really provided any solid framework for discussion I can really only resort to what theist principles currently exist.

What "theist" principles are these?

As far as I know there's only one theist principal:

The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God or gods.

You wanted a narrow discussion, lets narrow down both ends then.

You may have a secret "designer" in mind but have yet to link it to our existance or evolution or theism.

Err. Did too. Calculation of a solution, I thought was pretty clear. As for linking it to theism, good grief. I would have thought that was pretty clear. If you are designing universes, the word "god" is probably somewhere in your job description.

I know it's fun for you to be vague and ambiguous, so go right ahead. In the mean time you shouldn't denigrate my imagination until you reveal your delusions of a single creator to us blind folks.

Actually, I'm rather dissapointed. I see you expect me to reveal some manifest vision to you, so you can have fun trying to dissect it to satisfy your own need to feel something. When in fact, I'm not being vague, I'm discussing the issue at hand- Intelligent design. Not Intelligent Design by (insert name of revealed deity or prophet here). Such a revelation is not necessary to a discussion of theism, nor is it necessary to a discussion of intelligent design.

Your right, I shouldn't denigrate your imagination. I should smack you for trying to weasel.

Yes, I thought of that one once after skipping gym class ...and you poke fun at my imagination? This is meaningless. Because some super entity farted after lunch means we should worship it? Amusing really...

Excuse me, but now I must smack you for weaseling.

*smack*

Where in the definition of thiesm does it state that worship is a necessary componant? It isn't. All that is required is the belief or acknowledgement of the exisitence of a diety or dieties (or substitute the word god or gods). Now you should make contrition for thinking up theistic heresies, since you came pretty close to becoming a theist there.

You're too easily entertained. The final solution to the equation is 42.

Now, what was the point of this discussion again? Oh, that's right, it's pointless. In that case, please continue.

Actually, the effort of going over my points and making them clearer and more apparant isn't entertaining to me. However it's a necessary evil, since I have the tendancy to type much slower than I think.

As for the point of the discussion, I was belaboring under the apprehension that it was about theism. Intelligent design is one possible explination for the existence of the universe (not just life phenomena- since selection/elimination can apply to other things).

[BeardofPants]

Can we have an intelligent debate without patronising each other ya big lugs? Now, get to your corners or I'll ... What was I saying again?

Ah yes: intelligent design. Well, as someone once said, show me the money. Since I'm belabouring under my blinkered ideological belief systems, I need to smacked in the head with anything that doesn't fit into my nice tidy box.

Err.. no. I didn't say there was no final product. The final product may be a calculation, or other abstract that we are incapable of understanding from a limited perspective. Or it may well be a "physical" product. However the design goal isn't something that's going to be readily apparant. Just how much of the entire program structure does an individual bit come into contact with?

Well, I'm just about ready to worship Nature now... Whoops, did I say that out loud? I'll grant you the limited perspective bit, but just because we can't see the whole picture, doesn't mean that we should subscribe to some vague metaphysical notion of design to give ourselves headaches with. Some people are perfectly happy going around in circles, and talking out their arse...

The only point I'm particularly interested in, is can evolution (i.e. selection/elimination of non-solutions) be used as a viable computing tool. Well, we both know that it can, and that it is a particularly powerful one.

Yes but...

Whether or not these entities observe, or merely await the outcome, whether or not they have included freewill or predestination, an absolute moral standard, or an afterlife, is totally and completely immaterial to the discussion of intelligent design.

Which evidence are you trying to draw upon here? The abstract, or the biological? Evolution as a computing tool? A bit simplistic ain't it? Cause and Effect, and the good old binary system don't cut the mustard so to speak. Let's be a little more careful with our semantics.

Furthermore, if I really wanted to discuss whether or not my flatulence is awaiting the outcome of a particular computation displaying complex divergent functions, then I'd go discuss it on a theist forum... oops.... This talking out of your arse thing is contagious!

Err. Did too. Calculation of a solution, I thought was pretty clear. As for linking it to theism, good grief. I would have thought that was pretty clear. If you are designing universes, the word "god" is probably somewhere in your job description.

Far be it from you to bend our minds off topic! The problem is/was that you were being a bit vague, and slowly building up your arguments, and not telling us where you were going with them. Now that we know that you're talking about epistemological verbiage, well, at least we can better participate now.

Actually, I'm rather dissapointed. I see you expect me to reveal some manifest vision to you, so you can have fun trying to dissect it to satisfy your own need to feel something.

Well dissention is more interesting than a mutual admiration society... Oh damn, I just lost all feeling in my legs.

Where in the definition of thiesm does it state that worship is a necessary componant? It isn't. All that is required is the belief or acknowledgement of the exisitence of a diety or dieties (or substitute the word god or gods). Now you should make contrition for thinking up theistic heresies, since you came pretty close to becoming a theist there.

If you refer back to the beginning of the thread - some 20+ pages ago - you will see that part of the components of this discussion is worship.

From page one:

Whilst reading the thread entitled Relativism VS. Absoulte , I noticed that there were quite a few Christian posters submitting their opinions. In this thread, I would like to afford Christians and other theists the opportunity to divulge the reasons behind their convictions. This in my opinion is a very interesting and complex subject, and I think that valuable insight can be gained from such a discussion.

I now open the floor to the advocates of religion. Anyone?

[Cirdan]

Yes, we did start to slide down the slippery slop from theism to deism. Once you strip away religion, creative intent, and active involvement, you are left with an indifferent, irrelevant concept of a god or gods that is meaningless. Adding the extra layer of complexity doesn't resolve any of the complaints drummed up about the theory of evolution. It just gives them a name.

"Intelligent design" is just another way of saying speculative conjecture. If I were to speculate about a possible creator, it would be one that is indifferent and unaware, not just of daily occurances, but of the existance of is creation (except maybe the smell).

Sand of the beach could be used in a calculation. The question begs whether it is even a vaguely efficient way for a complex deity type organism to balance it's checkbook.

Furthermore, if I really wanted to discuss whether or not my flatulence is awaiting the outcome of a particular computation displaying complex divergent functions, then I'd go discuss it on a theist forum... oops.... This talking out of your arse thing is contagious!

Oops! ...I think I just carried the one.

What "theist" principles are these?

As far as I know there's only one theist principal:

The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God or gods.

You wanted a narrow discussion, lets narrow down both ends then.

You're confusing principal with definition. If you have a god somewhere without it's defining principles, you've got nada. I noticed how you capitalized "God".

[QUOTE]
Can we have an intelligent debate...
[QUOTE]

No... this is the Internet, after all.

On that note, wouldn't it be ironic if the universe was created in the lab of one of the "gods" who was doing research on the possible origins of their existance?

[afro-elf]

If you're really an atheist, as opposed to a anti-(mono)theist, you should have some ready arguments against some of the non conventional views.

I'll make this more clear. again I was asking specifcally for the common refutations to the common ID argument. That's all i was looking for at this moment.


A) organism are not perfectly designed
b) false analogy
c) lesser god,
d) pantheon

[afro-elf]

ps blackheart the perfectly designed statement had nothing to due with any of your discussions. it was just another thought about comman refutations.

[Cirdan]

This was an interesting article . Check the last page for the standard refutation of ID.

[afro-elf]

thank o great sea lord

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by afro-elf
thank o great sea lord

You welcome... it beats scraping barnacles or hitting bottom in the shallows

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Ah yes: intelligent design. Well, as someone once said, show me the money. Since I'm belabouring under my blinkered ideological belief systems, I need to smacked in the head with anything that doesn't fit into my nice tidy box.

What's all this about your nice box?

I'll grant you the limited perspective bit, but just because we can't see the whole picture, doesn't mean that we should subscribe to some vague metaphysical notion of design to give ourselves headaches with.

Actually, not being able to see the entire picture would tend to lead me to a position of agnosticism, and reservation of judgement.

Which evidence are you trying to draw upon here? The abstract, or the biological? Evolution as a computing tool? A bit simplistic ain't it? Cause and Effect, and the good old binary system don't cut the mustard so to speak. Let's be a little more careful with our semantics.

Evolution isn't a simplistic computing tool. By no means. It's one of the most powerful. If I had to pick a method (from the limited knowledge available to us) of caculating the best fitting solution, it would be my first choice.

What's wrong with simplistic? I hear people complain about all these wild flights of fancy, adding in extra reasons and unnecessesary complications, and yet here you go and try to bag me for being simplistic? As far as I'm concerned simple is good.

However, you're going to have to get a little more explicit on your complaint about cause and effect and binary systems. As far as I know, the universe doesn't operate on a binary system. Quantum fluctuations are of a higher order, and with the spin, charm, charge etc allow for a much more complex system than binary.

Far be it from you to bend our minds off topic! The problem is/was that you were being a bit vague, and slowly building up your arguments, and not telling us where you were going with them. Now that we know that you're talking about epistemological verbiage, well, at least we can better participate now.

Well now, some people like to peek into the pot, before the roast is done. I would have thought however, that were I was going- using the possibility of ID as a means of supporting a rational theist position- wouldn't have been too hard to guess.

If you refer back to the beginning of the thread - some 20+ pages ago - you will see that part of the components of this discussion is worship

Then the thread is misnamed. And should have been more correctly called religion. Theism is different from religion. Religion does involve worship and devotion. Theism is merely acknowledgement or belief. Whether or not worship is involved is immaterial. But just for the sake of discussion, I'll just ad the caveat that I'm going to honor the(se) intelligent designers by appreciating the subtle complexities of their calculation process. That should be enough to move the discussion within the realm of the supposed topic.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes, we did start to slide down the slippery slop from theism to deism. Once you strip away religion, creative intent, and active involvement, you are left with an indifferent, irrelevant concept of a god or gods that is meaningless.

I disagree, for a couple of reasons. One, it answers several fundamental metaphysical question. "Why are we here?" "What are we supposed to be doing?" etc. Second, postulating that the universe is a grand computing machine hardly strips away creative intent. Nor does it necessarily preclude active involvement.

It is however irrelevant to the discussion of the core possibility of intelligent design. You could as easily postulate that the universe is a sim game, or a hanging sculpture. I chose calculation because it's an interesting possibility with entertaining ramifications.

Adding the extra layer of complexity doesn't resolve any of the complaints drummed up about the theory of evolution. It just gives them a name.

Adding an extra layer of complexity? I could argue that merely accepting that the rules are "just so" for no particular reason is a retreat from investigation. And, not to be obtuse, but giving something a name is generally one of the first steps necessary for observation. Observation is generally required before you can gain anything like resolution.

"Intelligent design" is just another way of saying speculative conjecture. If I were to speculate about a possible creator, it would be one that is indifferent and unaware, not just of daily occurances, but of the existance of is creation (except maybe the smell).

Which is just as valid as any other person's speculations, until we start gathering evidence (which currently there is no way to do). Yes it is a form of speculative conjecture. However, speculative conjecture has a place in "science". If it weren't for speculative conjecture, many of the phenomena we take for granted today would never have been discovered, because no one would have looked for them. Such as black holes.

Sand of the beach could be used in a calculation. The question begs whether it is even a vaguely efficient way for a complex deity type organism to balance it's checkbook.

We know it's not a very efficient way to calculate (certain types of solutions) from what we can apply from our own methodology. There is no real difference in using the sand, or a peice of paper, or a serial computing device. Those are different matrices, but the method is the same. The matrix used is not the point.

We do however know that using genetic algorythm calculations is a very efficient way to calculate certain types of solutions. The matrix used again isn't the point. If we use a computer, or a bio-incubater, we're still using the same method.

So no, I disagree that it begs the question. Questions as to the efficiency of a particular type of matrix cannot be effectively formulated until we know more about the type of matrix in quesiton. If it happens to be the known universe, then we certainly don't know enough about the operation of time and space outside our own little bubble (not to mention INSIDE the bubble) to evaluate the efficiency of such a method.

You're confusing principal with definition. If you have a god somewhere without it's defining principles, you've got nada. I noticed how you capitalized "God".

I'm afraid you are going to have to expound on the difference between principal and definition. Because when I parse that sentance, it comes back nonsense.

As to having a god with no defining principles, I disagree that it is of no consequence. The primary fact that such an entity exists opens up an entire host of questions, not to mention it calls into question many assumptions that we make about the physical universe. To say that such is nada, sounds at the least, a bit pollyannish.

As for capitolization, it is a convention. I could have capitolized Gods also. If you read any meaning into it, it is your own bias, as no such meaning is intended.

I could just as easily written Azathoth, the blind, insane, idiot, unsensing god of Lovecraft's mythos that created the physical universe in an involuntary act. And yet, you'd tell me that the discovery of such an entity would be basically meaningless and without implication for humanity?

On that note, wouldn't it be ironic if the universe was created in the lab of one of the "gods" who was doing research on the possible origins of their existance?

Irony is a constant in the universe (as we percieve it). I find the possibility of such an infinite recursion oddly satidfying. Since if we are created in a lab for such a purpose, in the creator's own image (curious), then likely we will eventually be performing similar experiments, leading to a series of infinite recursions.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf



I'll make this more clear. again I was asking specifcally for the common refutations to the common ID argument. That's all i was looking for at this moment.


A) organism are not perfectly designed
b) false analogy
c) lesser god,
d) pantheon

Unfortunately, the commonly held view of ID is merely a sad excuse for vacilaiting over creationism as related in the Genesis myths.

Very few people on either side treat the idea with the merit or consideration it deserves, which irks me. I'm afraid you'll get no common ID arguments from me, as I regard them as deeply flawed, due to the bias inherant in the argument.

Make no mistake, ID is a metaphysical construct, and as such is not (currently) amenable to empirical disproof. There are however interesting question that are raised from investigating the possibilities. I find the most interesting, cogent, coherant, and entertaining of these possibilities, to be one that views the known universe to be a grand calculating matrix.

I

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Very few people on either side treat the idea with the merit or consideration it deserves, which irks me. I'm afraid you'll get no common ID arguments from me, as I regard them as deeply flawed, due to the bias inherant in the argument.

The problem with the concept is that it tries to be on both sides of the fence while claiming to be on neither. It's more science fiction than metaphytical postulation. I'm surprised that it irks you
since the concept, even in it's basic premise, is flawed. The conclusion is also the premise; the route to get there is any "unknowable purpose" one can postulate. Maybe if you gave some references to sources more unbiased than I've been able to find, I would be less dubious. As you've pointed out, the sources of ID are ineviatbly creationists.

[QUOTE][B]One, it answers several fundamental metaphysical question. "Why are we here?" "What are we supposed to be doing?" etc.
It may in a stretch, be an explanation, albeit weak, of how we came to be here. What we are supposed to be doing... not even close.

I could argue that merely accepting that the rules are "just so" for no particular reason is a retreat from investigation..

Not really... no one is accepting anything as "just so" and jumping to conclusions that lack any firm basis if fact is non-productive. There is a good deal of real work being done to explain actual events. Evolutionary research is the opposite of saying things are "just so". It is a statement of the most we can conclude based on the facts available. This is a dynamic process (several new finds of hominid remains have been very enlightening) and not a static concept. Advances in cosmology are dynamic as well. It would be fair to say that conservative assestment of the facts as we know them is not a method to a resolve the "design vs non-design" question.

If it weren't for speculative conjecture, many of the phenomena we take for granted today would never have been discovered, because no one would have looked for them. Such as black holes.

This is just not true. Empirical evidence exists for black holes. Physics had the tools to predict the possible existence of black holes. No one "I beleive there asre black holes. Let me go do some math, physics, and astonomy to discover them." I guess I should have said baseless, speculative conjecture.

I'm afraid you are going to have to expound on the difference between principal and definition.

Theism is used to describe the belief in god(s) as active and purposeful. Deism is the belief in god(s) that may have been involved in creation, but without intent, purpose or awareness of the creation. The difference is the assignment of properties, manifested in the principles of the belief system attributed to that god. Hence the reason for different terms.

I have no objection to straying off topic since the difference between the two terms, while significant, are not at all incompatible, but we should be clear about which we are discussing. Is it a god that creates the universe as a coscious effort, with the intent of creating life forms and actively be involved in the lives of the beings (theism), or is it and indifferent creator unaware of the "by-product" of conscious beings.

You are amusing, BH. The "pollyanna" adjective more aptly describes ID better than any statement I've made. Still, I suppose it could be fun to hypothesize about what the function of the universe might be. It beats dissecting the Old Testament, but not by much.

[Blackheart]

The problem with the concept is that it tries to be on both sides of the fence while claiming to be on neither. It's more science fiction than metaphytical postulation. I'm surprised that it irks you since the concept, even in it's basic premise, is flawed. The conclusion is also the premise; the route to get there is any "unknowable purpose" one can postulate. Maybe if you gave some references to sources more unbiased than I've been able to find, I would be less dubious. As you've pointed out, the sources of ID are ineviatbly creationists

I disagree that it is more science fiction than a metaphysical postulation. However, I also have no problem with science fiction that brings forth metaphysical postulation. (my favorite one being Dr. McCoy's Dillema).

I don't think it tries to be on both sides of the fence at all. I think it objects to the fence as a point of seperation. As for the conclusion being the premise, that might be an objection if it were an empirical statement, however that's not necesarily a problem in a metaphysical postulate, since it would be an apriori statement.

Of course there is no way to prove it. The interesting part is what questions does it raise? How does it conflict with what we know.?

As for the sources of ID being invariably creationist, no. The idea has been around for quite a while, (even in Sci-fi) but it has been tainted, perhaps irrevocably, by individuals with a creationist agenda.

Not really... no one is accepting anything as "just so" and jumping to conclusions that lack any firm basis if fact is non-productive.

Conclusion? Where the hell do you get conclusion? It's not even a testable hypothesis!!! But that doesn't mean that it's not a thought provoking idea, with interesting implications. Not to mention being productive, unless you think asking questions and exploring alternate methods of explaining data to be non-productive. Do you know how many academics I regularly whack over their heads for trying to get me to take their **** for gospel that shouldn't be questioned? Generally I remind them that they crucified Tesla for his out're ideas on AC electricity, and if they try to tell me Edison was the one who made the modern electric age possible, I know I'm wasting my time with a rigid conformist personality.

There is a good deal of real work being done to explain actual events. Evolutionary research is the opposite of saying things are "just so". It is a statement of the most we can conclude based on the facts available.

I'm quite aware of the recent advances. However, all to often the reasons for the "initial conditions" are presented as just so. Though there are some bright spots from the AL folks, who are beginging to do some real investigation into the interesting stuff, like variablity in matirx conditions etc. In other words, the history of evolution on this mudball doesn't really interest me in the slightest, and as far as I'm concerned "life" based on DNA is only a small example of decision making through selection.

This is a dynamic process (several new finds of hominid remains have been very enlightening) and not a static concept.

Then why the objection to an idea that may provide new questions to ask regarding the initial conditions of the universe? Oh, I forgot. It makes people relying on grant money uncomfortable.

Advances in cosmology are dynamic as well. It would be fair to say that conservative assestment of the facts as we know them is not a method to a resolve the "design vs non-design" question.

Well that's true enough, since it's not a measurable scientific hypothesis. Neither is another, the assumption that the "rules" for selection are non-directed. However, researchers use this idea all the time to generate questions for investigation. I fail to see the value in objecting to a question merely because it makes some people uncomfortable.

This is just not true. Empirical evidence exists for black holes. Physics had the tools to predict the possible existence of black holes. No one "I beleive there asre black holes. Let me go do some math, physics, and astonomy to discover them." I guess I should have said baseless, speculative conjecture.

Au contraire. The existence of singularities were completely speculative until observers began to make note of evidence that fit what was initially considered a wild esoteric theory of what was considered to be a highly improbable phenomena. As for your second statement, the first postulation of a black hole was shortly after Newton exponded his theories on gravitation. NEWTON. Is that speculative enough for you?

There are plenty of other examples of highly speculative ideas being supported by evidence, once the evidence was found. They were alos denigrated as baseless, speculative, wild, erroneous, insane conjecture, and utter hogwash. In many instances, no one would have been looking for the evidence, had not there been some odd concept clicking around in the grand conciousness. Plate tectonics is another fine example. I don't even feel like listing them, you can easily find your own examples.

Theism is used to describe the belief in god(s) as active and purposeful. Deism is the belief in god(s) that may have been involved in creation, but without intent, purpose or awareness of the creation. The difference is the assignment of properties, manifested in the principles of the belief system attributed to that god. Hence the reason for different terms.

I fond your definitions to be at variance with what the majority of dictionaries list.

Thiesm is listed most often as the doctrine or belief in the existence of a god or gods. It makes absolutely NO reference to revelation or interaction.

Deism is listed most often as the doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of those who acknowledge the existence of a god (or gods), but deny revelation. (in other words, no communication, or interaction)

As far as I can reasonably assertain theism is an overarching class, and deism is a subclass of theism. Hence discussion of deism is quite acceptable in the topic of theism, since it is a form of theism. Yor objection still makes no sense to me.

I have no objection to straying off topic since the difference between the two terms, while significant, are not at all incompatible, but we should be clear about which we are discussing.

Tain't off topic, they are compatible, and I'm trying to be clear. Deism is a form of theism.

Is it a god that creates the universe as a coscious effort, with the intent of creating life forms and actively be involved in the lives of the beings (theism), or is it and indifferent creator unaware of the "by-product" of conscious beings.

All very interesting to be sure, but it has little to do with the question of using evolution as a method of calculating a solution, either way. The initial conditions, in other words, the freaking question, is the meat of the issue. Whether the calculation is left to run "on it's own" or fine tuning is included doesn't really matter, to me anyway.

You are amusing, BH. The "pollyanna" adjective more aptly describes ID better than any statement I've made. Still, I suppose it could be fun to hypothesize about what the function of the universe might be. It beats dissecting the Old Testament, but not by much.

I'm so happy to see you amused. I wouldn't use pollyanna to describe the concept as I present it however, as I have absolutely no hope that the question can be answered with certainty. The hope of such certainty is pollyannish, which is why I have no trouble applying the adjective to the idea of certainty regarding non-directed statements.

[Cirdan]

Don't try and bend the fence. That's impossible. You must realize there is no fence

I'm not impressed with your academic whacking prowess. A simple concept that choosing not to decide is still a decision is apparently lost here. You once posted that you accept ideas that are useful. I find not use in metaphyscial postulations that the universe is a machine any more useful than a statement that a rock is a very slow moving form of life. That I don't as the same questions you do, does not mean I don't question, so save your anti-intellectual insults for your rigid academic whackees.

Theories of gravity and based on gravity are NOT baseless. Gravity if a fairly tangible experience, no? Extraplolating on a empircal concept to a step-wise conculsion is a bit different than saying gravity is a trash compactor for a supra-universal being. Plate Tectonics is based on observable natural phenomena as well. Empirical, tangible and verifiable. What others may say about their contemporaries as to the validity of the findings is not relevant to our discussion. These were not metaphysical hypotheses or pure postulation. It was someone finding the words, the equations, or putting seemingly disparate facts together to form a new concept.

An example of baseless theories is the creationist concept of the crust of the earth floating on a layer of water and then breaking to create the biblical flood. Working from the answer backwards to the theory in order to get the desired answer.

We did start a discussion on ID as it relates to Evolution, Now your not interested. Fine. Best to be a moving target. Universal evolution? I have no ridgid thoughts on this at all. In fact, I think we have discovered more questions than answers, as facinating as the answers maybe be.

You don't like the word conclusion. Can I substitute "hypothetical conclusion?" "If directed design then...." as you yourself have posted previously. To postulate requires proposing some potential truth or conclusion, even though the assumptions are not based in fact.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no objection to straying off topic since the difference between the two terms, while significant, are not at all incompatible, but we should be clear about which we are discussing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tain't off topic, they are compatible, and I'm trying to be clear. Deism is a form of theism.

re-read my quote... "not at all INcompatible"

I agree that deism is a form of theism. My source of definitions is "Webster's Encylcopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" (1996). The use of The term "theism" is primarily defined, and commonly used, as the belief in God. The secondary and more general definition is the definition you have been using (god or gods). Piddling difference, but if piddling is in order... We can even discuss polytheism if you want.

Whoa, you really don't like Edison! Does he remind you a bit of a man named Bill?

Anyway, if you get your hackles down and want to discuss the calculation device hypothesis and how it might work in relation to what we know, okay. If you just want to point out that it is conceivable, I guess we're done with ID.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
You once posted that you accept ideas that are useful. I find not use in metaphyscial postulations that the universe is a machine any more useful than a statement that a rock is a very slow moving form of life.

Then you aren't looking very hard. Such ideas can provide quite a bit of insight into patterns occuring in "reality". That's what humans do best, find patterns. If you did, for example, examine the question of whether stars could be considered a very slow life form, then you might think about new questions to investigate, such as how new stars are frmed, are new stars influenced in any way by their "parents" etc. I find such concepts quite useful.

That I don't as the same questions you do, does not mean I don't question, so save your anti-intellectual insults for your rigid academic whackees.

No. *Whack*

Theories of gravity and based on gravity are NOT baseless. Gravity if a fairly tangible experience, no?

Funny you should mention that. It's only fairly tangible if you happen to be near a large mass. Not to mention we lack a quantum theory of gravity, and there are some interesting alternate theories such as radient pressure and inertial conservation that, while they are flawed, provide a framework for some very interesting questions that illuminate shortcomings in our current theories.

Extraplolating on a empircal concept to a step-wise conculsion is a bit different than saying gravity is a trash compactor for a supra-universal being. Plate Tectonics is based on observable natural phenomena as well. Empirical, tangible and verifiable.

That's why, if you noticed, I said ID is a metaphysical postulation. However, the assertion that evolution is a means of calculating a result, is not. It can be proven, or disproven.

What others may say about their contemporaries as to the validity of the findings is not relevant to our discussion. These were not metaphysical hypotheses or pure postulation. It was someone finding the words, the equations, or putting seemingly disparate facts together to form a new concept.

Which has what to do with diddly over squat?

An example of baseless theories is the creationist concept of the crust of the earth floating on a layer of water and then breaking to create the biblical flood. Working from the answer backwards to the theory in order to get the desired answer.

Which again has what to do with what? It's an empirical prediction, which can be easily disproven. But discussing ID isn't an empirical discussion. The capability to prove or disprove design doesn't exist, and likely may neve exist.

That however doesn't mean that you can't take a question formulated from a view of design, such as the possibility of a working evolutionary calculating device, and submit it to empirical tests.

We did start a discussion on ID as it relates to Evolution, Now your not interested. Fine. Best to be a moving target.

Who said I wasn't intersted? Because I don't want to participate in useless blatherings about genesis based pseudo science predicated on perfection of forms? I'm surprised you want to discuss such a concept, since it's fairly stale, and has been beaten to death in numerous places. However I hve no objection to discussing the concept of design as it relates to process and function. Just save the anthropomorphic ammo for another person. For that matter though, if you are going to discuss process and function, why limit yourself to purely biological examples?

Universal evolution? I have no ridgid thoughts on this at all. In fact, I think we have discovered more questions than answers, as facinating as the answers maybe be.

Yes, in other words, if evolution is a function observed in replicating processes, then once could expect it to be observed (to differing degrees) in all replicating processes. Why limit yourself to biological examples if you are going to talk ID, especially since it's a metaphysical concept. We ourselves are already designing artificial life matrixes, and for that matter, creating new life forms. It's built into the "rules" of the matrix.

Now when you start asking questions like why it's built into the matrix, then you are dealing with metaphysics. But answers dealing with the capabilities of evolutionary functions in different processes, i.e. what they can be used for, are empirical.

You don't like the word conclusion. Can I substitute "hypothetical conclusion?" "If directed design then...." as you yourself have posted previously. To postulate requires proposing some potential truth or conclusion, even though the assumptions are not based in fact.

Your assumption is false. I believe I quite clearly stated the profound implications for the human psyche if such a metaphysical assertation were somehow proven to be true.

re-read my quote... "not at all INcompatible"

*Whack* Wafflemeister

I agree that deism is a form of theism. My source of definitions is "Webster's Encylcopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" (1996). The use of The term "theism" is primarily defined, and commonly used, as the belief in God. The secondary and more general definition is the definition you have been using (god or gods). Piddling difference, but if piddling is in order... We can even discuss polytheism if you want.

I find it more commonly used in the broader sense, since there is a specific term for what you are refering to, monotheism. Why use the broader term, theism, to refer to something, when there is a specific term, monotheism?

I don't particularly care what form of theism is being discussed, since the broader term covers them all.

Whoa, you really don't like Edison! Does he remind you a bit of a man named Bill?

Actually, now that you mention it, a bit. However, I don't particularly regard Herr Gates as an inventor or scientist, just a businessman, and as such his behavior is to be expected. With Edison, there was at least the expectation of objectivity and honesty.

Anyway, if you get your hackles down and want to discuss the calculation device hypothesis and how it might work in relation to what we know, okay. If you just want to point out that it is conceivable, I guess we're done with ID.

My hackles aren't up. I always talk like a pompus smartass.
As for how it might work in relation to what we know, well that's not a difficult task. We already know that it works well for many questions where there are a wide range of possible solutions. It's used all the time for such calculations.

[afro-elf]

I always talk like a pompus smartass

I fear your rebuttal so I'll just walk away

Ps do/did you and that dark elf poster ( mord-something) at ME Vault ever get into a verbal war

it would have been great to read

[Blackheart]

No, Morty and I never really got into a full "discussion", which is just as well. I'm not sure the snoball servers would have made it.