Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-21-2009, 02:44 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,158,378 times
Reputation: 592

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
I agree. "It just is" is withholding an explanation. It is only saying what is evident, which is that 'it is'. Saying there's a conscious 'mover' is baseless, and thus "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.

It's all speculation. However, there are a couple problems that I see here. First, it seems that you are implying that this 'universal field' has not always been; that it came out of 'nothingness'.. a claim that cannot be supported.

Second, I don't understand how you drew the conclusion here: "consciousness requires the existence of a field to contain the composite "Self"making it a superior candidate to "nothingness" for the universal field." I don't quite get what you mean by the green part (particularly what 'field' you are referring to), and I don't get what you mean by "nothingness for the universal field" either.

So, are you trying to say that there was a "before the universe" and 'something from nothing' can't happen and so therefore a conscious creator had to have done it? I'm getting the sense of an infinite regression of "god created the universe, so what created god, and what created that, and what created that... ad infinitum"

---
Also, I'm curious about something: do you believe that our autonomic nervous system, which works because of our brain but we do not consciously control it, is controlled by a conscious god? Also, do you believe that every event, say for example a rock rolling down a hill, happens because a conscious god made it happen? Does this hypothetical conscious god micromanage every event?
I tried explain this to him already, he doesn't seem to want to listen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2009, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,903 posts, read 6,005,119 times
Reputation: 3533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post

First, speaking of logical fallacies, a fallacy is not proof of anything other than the use of a fallacy. Second, it has already been explained a thousand times here. Explaining a 1,001st time while you all shout "LA LA LA LA!" with your fingers in your ears is an exercise in futility.
I see you agree with me. Yet again you can't come up with evidence so you go off on a tangent where you attack the arguer rather than the argument. It discredits your argument when it contains fallacies because it says that the evidence for your claim is either very weak or that you have none, thus proof that your argument is not worth accepting. Evolution and ID are incompatible and here's why:
The claims of evolution are detectable through empirical testing whereas ID is not. The problem with saying ID and evolution are compatible is that ID adds an undetectable element(the Intelligent Designer) to the equation. The problem with this is that it is merely the god of the gaps argument. What the ID hypothesis is doing is inserting god into areas which are currently unknown or the ID proponent can't imagine the answer being something that doesn't include a god entity. The TOE on the otherhand doesn't claim to know current unknowns until evidence is found which provides the answer for those unknowns. One can believe in god and believe that evolution is guided by their god, although this belief would constitute as a value judgement, but certainly not something that is compatible with science because it can't be empirically proven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,951,116 times
Reputation: 29981
Yet again claiming ID means "God" when, as has been elucidated numerous times already, ID makes no claims about the nature or identity of the designer. But thanks for proving me correct once more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,903 posts, read 6,005,119 times
Reputation: 3533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Yet again claiming ID means "God" when, as has been elucidated numerous times already, ID makes no claims about the nature or identity of the designer. But thanks for proving me correct once more.
I didn't prove you correct, although it's interesting that you still refuse to provide evidence that supports your claim that ID is compatible with evolution. I think I'll start a thread on this since, this thread is about ID as a theory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 03:40 PM
 
5,463 posts, read 9,613,993 times
Reputation: 3555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
ID makes no claims about the nature or identity of the designer.
I asked earlier how you would define ID, but nary a peep. So how is the design considered to be of intelligent origin?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 05:01 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,404,259 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
You two are perfect cases in point, particularly of the stubborn -- dare I say dogmatic -- insistence on conflating ID with creationism and framing it as "my view or the God did it view" no matter how many times it is explained that evolution and ID are not incompatible.
The only case in point is that you've proven that you take pseudosciences seriously.

Creationism/ID has NO valid sciences backing it up, and has no valid scientific principles either.

It attempts to make a hypothesis (either Godunnit or an attempt to cloak God in anonymity when everyone else knows perfectly well IDers mean Jehovah) and then create "facts" to fit the model. It leaves out MOST of the scientific process.

Creationism/ID is also completely baseless. There is simply nothing even suggesting any form of "designer" behind the Universe except Jesus-on-toast examples, that is to say pointing at something that has a perfectly rational explination and claiming it was designed, or using examples the human race is perhaps still fuzzy on, such as Abiogenesis, and claiming that is a basis for a Creator/Designer.

Also, the Universe OBVIOUSLY is not designed.

You yourself is a perfect example. The spine, while very functional and stable for a four legged animal, sucks in human beings. It is an inherently unstable structure in an upright animal like Mankind, prone to damage and debilitating wear just through the act of living. Human beings also have THE worst senses in the animal kingdom. Out of all omnivores and carnivors, we have THE worst eyesight, and senses of smell and hearing. We also have little to no natural protection from the elements. We burn easily in the sun, we freeze to death where other animals thrive.

As for said Creator, there is simply NO proof. We know the earliest religions among human beings did not contain deities. They were shamanistic and animistic in nature. Humaform deities didn't evolve until a few tens of thousands of years ago, and especially Jehovah who didn't arise until about 3 thousand years ago, not even an eyeblink in our racial history.

So, now perhaps you'll see why Creationism/ID is so easily dismissed by rational people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 07:39 PM
 
1,020 posts, read 2,528,631 times
Reputation: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bud235 View Post
Does intelligent Design qualify as a theory?

Many religious parents want public schools teach Intelligent Design in science class as a "competing science", is this a good idea?
It's a PHILOSOPHICAL theory. It's not in the same realm as evolution, a SCIENTIFIC theory. Scientific theories are amendable by new data and changes (it is also based on facts), whereas philosophical theories are conjecture that aren't necessarily amendable by new findings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 09:31 PM
 
63,568 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7819
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
I agree. "It just is" is withholding an explanation. It is only saying what is evident, which is that 'it is'. Saying there's a conscious 'mover' is baseless, and thus "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory.

It's all speculation. However, there are a couple problems that I see here. First, it seems that you are implying that this 'universal field' has not always been; that it came out of 'nothingness'.. a claim that cannot be supported.

Second, I don't understand how you drew the conclusion here: "consciousness requires the existence of a field to contain the composite "Self"making it a superior candidate to "nothingness" for the universal field." I don't quite get what you mean by the green part (particularly what 'field' you are referring to), and I don't get what you mean by "nothingness for the universal field" either.

So, are you trying to say that there was a "before the universe" and 'something from nothing' can't happen and so therefore a conscious creator had to have done it? I'm getting the sense of an infinite regression of "god created the universe, so what created god, and what created that, and what created that... ad infinitum"

---
Also, I'm curious about something: do you believe that our autonomic nervous system, which works because of our brain but we do not consciously control it, is controlled by a conscious god? Also, do you believe that every event, say for example a rock rolling down a hill, happens because a conscious god made it happen? Does this hypothetical conscious god micromanage every event?
Logic . . . I would love to address these excellent questions in an extensive seminar setting with assigned readings and development of conceptual understanding of the science as we know it to date, etc. That is not feasible here. To clarify some foundational issues. I fully accept and agree with the known science to date about evolution and accept the current theoretical developments in abiogenesis, astrophysics, cosmology, QED, QCD . . . the attempts to unify the four forces under a universal field theory via Loop quantum gravity, String theory, the Maldacena conjecture, quantum field theory . . . and Penrose's theories about the quantum formation of consciousness, etc, etc. Despite Axis's obsessive (and uninformed) bleatings about Creationism and the Discovery Institute's bastardization of ID . . . they form NO PART of my views.

To analogize my view of the universe as the result of God's consciousness . . . I suggest you imagine US as the "God" of our physical body (personal universe). The admixture of form and function is sufficiently diverse to serve as a comprehensible analogue. We are a complex manifestation of life forms and components of life (bacteria, parasites, our organs, tissues, processes, senses, consciousness, etc. Our consciousness is the God over it all. All the coordination that enables us to be a living being emanates from there in both directly conscious and subconscious processes. Adepts can learn to consciously direct many of the autonomic or subconscious processes . . . but seldom all.

When do we consciously address the continuing and automatic aspects of our bodies functioning? When we receive pain signals or experience malfunctioning. Otherwise we are oblivious . . . right? Why is it so impossible to imagine that the entire universe is nothing more than the "body" of God and we are merely cells of His consciousness. What function the other aspects of the universe perform is beyond our finite capacity to even imagine. We barely know all the things that our own bodies do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 12:23 AM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,023,359 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Logic . . . I would love to address these excellent questions in an extensive seminar setting with assigned readings and development of conceptual understanding of the science as we know it to date, etc. That is not feasible here. To clarify some foundational issues. I fully accept and agree with the known science to date about evolution and accept the current theoretical developments in abiogenesis, astrophysics, cosmology, QED, QCD . . . the attempts to unify the four forces under a universal field theory via Loop quantum gravity, String theory, the Maldacena conjecture, quantum field theory . . . and Penrose's theories about the quantum formation of consciousness, etc, etc. Despite Axis's obsessive (and uninformed) bleatings about Creationism and the Discovery Institute's bastardization of ID . . . they form NO PART of my views.

To analogize my view of the universe as the result of God's consciousness . . . I suggest you imagine US as the "God" of our physical body (personal universe). The admixture of form and function is sufficiently diverse to serve as a comprehensible analogue. We are a complex manifestation of life forms and components of life (bacteria, parasites, our organs, tissues, processes, senses, consciousness, etc. Our consciousness is the God over it all. All the coordination that enables us to be a living being emanates from there in both directly conscious and subconscious processes. Adepts can learn to consciously direct many of the autonomic or subconscious processes . . . but seldom all.

When do we consciously address the continuing and automatic aspects of our bodies functioning? When we receive pain signals or experience malfunctioning. Otherwise we are oblivious . . . right? Why is it so impossible to imagine that the entire universe is nothing more than the "body" of God and we are merely cells of His consciousness. What function the other aspects of the universe perform is beyond our finite capacity to even imagine. We barely know all the things that our own bodies do.
Sure, interesting and fun to imagine. Kind of reminds me of the movie Men in Black.. with the galaxy on the cat collar.

So then, is the universe just a cell of a larger conscious being?

--
Anyway, I'm still curious about your statement: "consciousness requires the existence of a field to contain the composite "Self"making it a superior candidate to "nothingness" for the universal field."

Am I a field? My environment? The universe? What are you saying that my consciousness requires?

And how is that evidence of a conscious universe?

(also, do you consider your conscious universe god to be the creator of itself, or is the creation of the universe still unknown to you?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 12:40 AM
 
63,568 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7819
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Sure, interesting and fun to imagine. Kind of reminds me of the movie Men in Black.. with the galaxy on the cat collar.

So then, is the universe just a cell of a larger conscious being?
Unknowable.
Quote:
Anyway, I'm still curious about your statement: "consciousness requires the existence of a field to contain the composite "Self"making it a superior candidate to "nothingness" for the universal field."

Am I a field? My environment? The universe? What are you saying that my consciousness requires?
Each consciousness (Self) exists as a composite in a non-physical substrate (field) that contains its composite characteristics. Any attempt to locate a "physical" representation fails to account for the self-referential nature of consciousness. (Sorry . . . this requires much more extensive explanation than is doable in this venue).
Quote:
And how is that evidence of a conscious universe?
It is proof of concept as the source of a field that consists of something (unmeasurable = non-baryonic) other than the existing four forces known to science (measurable = baryonic).
Quote:
(also, do you consider your conscious universe god to be the creator of itself, or is the creation of the universe still unknown to you?)
I prefer the minority view of Fred Hoyle (now deceased) and his associates . . . the continuous creation theory of an always existent universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top