The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design
- Thread starter LFiess1942
- Start date
It is very freaky so many believe some god(s) came about by random chance.
You appear to have the same problem as Einstein with his "Cosmological Constant"
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. That's why I put "random", which was your term, in inverted commas.
Creationists seem to like to pose a false antithesis between "design" on the one hand and "randomness" on the other. Especially the idea that evolution implies the operation of "random" chance. (For some reason they are less troubled by the idea that bulk properties of matter also arise from "random" events at the atomic and molecular scale.)
Whereas the physicist, chemist or biologist is aware that the superficially chaotic or "random" motions of atoms and molecules, and the lifecycles of organisms, all in fact follow patterns, which result in higher order organisation of the world, such as the bulk properties and reactions of matter and evolutionary change in living things.
But it seems to me an error of logic to assume that the existence of the order we observe implies intent. Intent, at least in its everyday meaning implies purpose, which implies conscious will. Science does not find it necessary to attribute the order we observe to any intent, will, or purpose. It simply observes,it categorises it and develops model to account for it.
It is quite legitimate to ask about intent, will or purpose, but this is not the job of science. Indeed the success of science is largely due to deliberately excluding such forms of enquiry. This is Bigfoot's error, which is shared by others who have bought the ID package.
Is it not just hilarious for a subject which deliberately excludes this kind of inquiry to scoff at those who try? Besides, science itself is not a blind methodology. It embraces intent to know, but stone-walls on some particular kind of knowledge. Its like a blind man who after gaining sight, denies any importance of appreciating reality
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I am not "scoffing" at those who want to ask questions about will, purpose and intent in the world, as my post makes perfectly clear. I am pointing out - once more - that these perfectly valid questions are not part of science, that's all.
They are not science because there is no way to make observations about such things that are capable of falsifying a hypothesis about them. This is basic philosophy of science.
It is really about time you acknowledged this issue and dealt with it in a mature manner.
No amount of rhetoric, whining or deceitful argument is going to change that. (The ID movement is replete with all three.)
Science is not rigid, nor does your response answer the question: how is ID falsifiable? How is it even testable?
There is also a difference between building on in a framework that allows for testing, confirmation, falsification, and merely making up assumptions that are not supported by the facts in order to arrive at an answer that fits your agenda. And that is what ID does.
Not at all. The creation of a closed-universe logically results in the internal universe, from its own perspective, arising from nothing.
The alternatives would be an eternal closed universe, which would require no creation, or an open universe - which is not supported by science.
It is my opinion, and you are doing nothing to persuade me (or anyone else) otherwise, which you could simply do by detailing how ID is testable and falsifiable.
And right with your first sentence you introduce an unwarranted assumption that begs the question.
Your argument is one of fine-tuning, yet ignores the possibility that rather than the universe being made fit for us, we are merely fit for the universe through mechanistic processes (evolution).
As previously mentioned, your argument is the same as shuffling a deck of cards and dealing them out one at a time, and then looking at the order they were dealt and going "Wow! What are the chances of that order coming out exactly as it did!" Your argument, with its unwarranted assumption, would conclude that the odds are almost 1 in 10^68, and you'd undoubtedly conclude: "It's a miracle! Surely evidence of God!"
Care for another try?
This time without the unwarranted assumption, please.
The problems aren't mine. They belong to folks who treat historical fiction as historical fact, then deny all the other facts available through the repository of human knowledge in order to shore up the worst fallacy imaginable.
"Hearsay upon hearsay" Thomas Paine wrote of the "evidence" attesting to fundamentalist beliefs. To which I add, recognizing the denial of science by fundies: "fallacy upon fallacy".
"because there is no way to make observations about such things"
Since Quantum Physics have found it impossible to observe reality or make sense of it, wither goes scientific methodology?
“how is ID falsifiable? How is it even testable?”
How can you even ask such a question when such a fantastic methodology have been developed from apparently a reality without design? Do you not think, that its ridiculous to formulate a definite methodology (Science) which unravel reality that agree with logic, and then refute design? Do you not see your own scientific method indicts you? You have build your science through falsifiable methodology. You have analyzed matter and reality through assumption tests of these assumption, then confirmation of the assumption. And then, you claim that there is not design, yet, you have assumed design, developed a design (Formulas) tested the designs, confirmed the design, and then denied i. What is going on?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is feeble diversionary stuff on your part. You continue to dodge the basic problem you face, which is that of what potentially falsifiable hypothesis there can possibly be that would arise from alleged purpose, will or intent in the physical world.
Quantum physics is full of these, which have been amply corroborated by observation, as you well know. So the QM model of reality seems to work pretty well for most purposes. If it did not, it would be a cornerstone of physics, and the cornerstone of chemistry, would it? Don't pretend QM creates problems for the scientific method. That is dishonest (unless you are stupid, which I don't think you are, quite).
You mean "whither", by the way.
I think you have answered nothing ever except in your delirious deluded dreamworld.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Don't be absurd, that's just an incoherent tirade against the scientific method for excluding consideration of design.
The point you refuse to address, which both Sarkus and I have been making repeatedly, to no avail it seems, is the reason why the scientific method excludes design, namely that alleging "design" does not offer any testable (that is, potentially falsifiable) hypotheses.
Nobody but an idiot would suggest that science ought to include untestable hypotheses. I do hope that is not what you are suggesting.
The problems aren't mine. They belong to folks who treat historical fiction as historical fact, then deny all the other facts available through the repository of human knowledge in order to shore up the worst fallacy imaginable.
"Hearsay upon hearsay" Thomas Paine wrote of the "evidence" attesting to fundamentalist beliefs. To which I add, recognizing the denial of science by fundies: "fallacy upon fallacy".
It makes you wrong to declare that fact and fiction are the same. That's the essential piece you don't want to select out while laboring to shore up a belief rooted in fiction.
Let me put it this way. Imagine you suddenly find yourself in a dark place. you do not know where you are. But you have these balls around you. So, in order for you to find out where you are, you start throwing balls around you. Funny thing start happening. Every time you throw a ball in any direction, it comes back to you. what do you surmise? Most like, that you are in an enclosure with a hard wall. But if these balls keep coming back at you, what else does this tell you about this enclosure? Most likely its circular. Meaning its design like a circle.
You have figured all this, while standing just at one place. It’s the same thing we can say of science. That by the fact that we have developed a body of knowledge which deconstructs reality logically, this itself is an evidence of logical design of the reality. I.e Science is evidence that the Universe is designed. We can treat science, like the “balls” we have been throwing around in the dark, which have helped us understand reality logically, indicating a logical construction of reality. Need I say more?
Last edited:
So, if we couldn't figure things out, that would mean reality is not logicly designed. LOL For thousands of years it was not designed since humans couldn't figure it out but now it is designed. If we continue to progress in science, reality will be even better designed 100 years from now. But if there is a huge cataclysm & humans lose most science then reality will no longer be designed.
to your last statement , agreed
and there have been many cataclysms , in the history of this Earth
Did you miss the LOL?