As I have said before, "proof" requires agreement.

I asked you what you would accept as "proof" and you said you wanted to know who the designers are. I told you that the answer to that question would not be "proof enough." And indeed it was not.

So I gave you the answer: WE are the designers. Others (perhaps similar to us) are our designers. Others are their designers etc etc. to infinity.


So the answer is NOT proof enough for you as I told you it would NOT BE.

It is obvious that this universe is a design.

You want it to be obvious to ALL? Good luck with that.

Infinity is the key to the structure of the universe.

"Creation" (I call it manifestation) starts from the center and continues to manifest. (In a reality with no time and space, there is no 'beginning.")

As for your demand that if a person believes in a designer or designers they had best be prepared to know where there designers come from... because it is a valid question... I have to laugh at that.

I don't have to justify my "belief" to anyone unless I am in the business of enforcing it upon the masses. What I believe should not be a concern to anyone but me.

If people ask me what I believe I will tell them, but they have no business demanding that I be prepared to answer to them for it just because they think it is a 'valid question.'

I have given you my answers, I have presented my evidence of the existence of designers and their designs and still you squirm and protest. I have to wonder why you even care one way or another what I believe and why. Just disagree and go about your business, I won't mind at all.

Remember proof requires agreement. You have no proof, I have no proof, we have no agreement.

Sky wrote:


What does this have to do with science? Based on your view, what reason would you have to argue that science should accept the possibility of your creative vision? What is there to gain?

Abra wrote:


This is confusing to me, because I thought these kinds of questions WERE being addressed in science. As you have so often explained we consider something (temporarily) absolute until some exception to the rule is discovered, therefore we cannot be sure that there are any absolutes.

To solve this problem you seek an absolute answer to everything, all at once, with one theory – creative designer. But would that make a difference, would that change our drive to understand how the stuff that is already here really works?

I suppose it might if it should be determined that we are being held captive under the will and authority of an ever present and ever meddling designer. In that case any knowledge we might seek would be a waste because the basis for that knowledge could be changed at any moment. How is that any different than the current belief systems invoking gods?

This should have followed Sky's reply not my post.

I could see a tiny bit of what you said, previous to this, that had some relation to my beliefs. But I think it’s mostly out of context and thus much of my intended meaning is lost – particularly the “real is imaginary solipsism” part.

Yeah, that’s what I said. My definition is meaningless to you. But since you have not offered any definition at all, I don’t see any meaning coming from you either.

If disorder does not exist anywhere you're using a word with a meaning but that meaning has nothing to do with anything in our universe so it's pointless to say anything about it.And again, since you have offered no other meaning, my meaning stands because no other alternative has been offered. In the vernacular, put up or shut up.

For you to have known your "proof" would be insufficient, you had to feel it was insufficient at some level yourself.

Your proof was the Contact movie? No wonder you felt it would not be enough. I loved that movie though but it doens't prove anything.

You should know where the designer comes from if there is evidence all around you of a designer. It is a natural deduction I would think.

No of course not. That is no proof. That was my answer to your question about who the designers are. That is the best 'answer' I have and I believe there is definitely truth in that movie but not PROOF.

I knew my answer (which you said would be accepted as proof.) would be 'insufficient' FOR YOU.

Why do you keep demanding proof? I told you, many times, that proof requires agreement. We do not have agreement. You will not tell me what you would accept as "proof."

(Well you did say you wanted an answer to who the designers are, and I did tell you that the "answer" would NOT BE PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Now once again I am asking, what kind of PROOF WOULD YOU ACCEPT?

If you do not feel the need to prove what you say maybe debating is not for you?? Belief or otherwise.

There are cases where proof speaks for itself without any agreement from both sides. This should definitely be one of those cases. Because a designer would be very obvious if it existed.

No there are not. The 'proof' never 'speaks for itself' no matter what it is. It still requires agreement.

Designers are very obvious. I have given you examples. Now tell me why (to you) they are "not obvious" or (to you) they are not "evidence enough."

Instead of just making blatant assertions, tell my WHY you make these statements.

As far as 'debating' not being for me, I say again Proof is a matter of agreement.

If you are 'debating' and protecting your position with no intention of listening to the other side or looking at the evidence, then you are correct. That kind of 'debating' is not for me. I seek to find agreement, not to 'win a debate."

QUESTION FOR ABRA FOLLOWS QUOTES BELOW:

JB wrote:


And Sky Wrote:
Sky wrote:



QUESTION FOR ABRA:

When looking into creating a hypothesis for an inelligent design theory how would we decide whether to look for a single force capable of willing matter into being, or a programmer geek type god who created a matrix type game comeplete with humans for role playing? Or perhaps we should look for a complex energy source formed by a combination of free agents that decided to build a matrix through which to recreate their essence in various physical forms for the pure enjoyment of experiencing such forms?

How would you proceed, as a scientist, I mean?

And one last question - in case your theory hits dead end, what is your "default" - as a scientist that is?

I like what you said here, Redy. To say that the scientists are looking to answer the same questions is a bit off, though. I say that because though the question is the same, word-for-word, there are different motivations behind the asking of them.

A scientist will only follow the "why" as a sequential step-by-step lgical backtracking of how facts connect. Why there are only 100 elements will be answered with a few or more answers, which answers, in turn, will beg for being questioned for their causes. So if one says "the nucleus can only contain 100 protons before it falls apart" is a good answer, against which the immediate new question springs up, "why is an atomic nucleus ready to fall apart when the protons there number above 100?" And if we find an answer to that, we will find a question to explain where the explanation to that comes from.

A different way of posing the question why there are only 100 elements presupposes some purpose, some fundamental moral or motivational force without which the universe would just stop in its tracks.

I am not going to make judgement over which "why" makes more sense, despite having very definite opinions on that. I just simply wanted to show that a straightforward-looking "why" is not always a so apparently straightforward.

Wittgenstein made it his life work to point out this thing in speech to his very lucky fellow humans.

Well thank-you Shoku for the reply - you made me laugh, not as hard as Sky did but it's always a good night when these discussions amuse me instead of frustrate me.

Jeannie, because there is no way to prove intelligent design you are at a disadvantage. But in your favor the proof against it is just as difficult.

This discussion is along the same lines as a religious discussion of whose god is better yours or mine....lol

I just like to see what lengths people will go to to prove this belief they have.

My stance on this subject has been stated. Instead of looking for a complex explanation (designer) which is difficult if not impossible to verify, it is more inline with this universe to start simply, molecularly simply and work from there. Abra talked of the similarity and limit to atoms known in this universe. Showing that molecularly there is commonality in most everything. Showing that we are all the same at a basic level. Showing the start to all was molecular. My stance of course.

Now as for me, I do not qualify as an atheist because I believe in a life force or energy that is shared by every living thing. We effect one another with this energy by being positive in our nature or negative in nature. I believe this energy leaves us at death and goes into the universe.

Sorry to have frustrated you so badly.

I'm not sure if science can even address these questions quite frankly. To the best of my knowledge the answers to these questions are blocked from us by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.



I don't think it really matters. The answers to these questions may forever be forbidden for use to know.



We already are held captive in more ways that you might imagine.

Our physical form already places restraints on us. And as I've suggested above, there is already knowledge that we know 'exists' yet is beyond are reach. At least this is the current status of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. It could turn out that someday Quantum Mechancis will fail and turn out to be wrong. However, at the current time it doesn't appear that this is going to happen.



Well, it can be quite a bit different depending one which belief systems you're talking about.

There's no doctrine that comes with this hypothesis claiming that the Intelligent Designer had anyone stoned to death or nailed to any polls or that you'll be next in line if you don't worship it.

So it's quite different I would say.

In fact, there's nothing in this hypotheses that prevents us from actually being the Intelligent Designer. It's my own personal hunch, that if there is an Intelligent Designer of this universe, we're it.

I can't imagine why a being would bother designing a universe and not jumping right into play.

Would you go through the trouble of designing a swimming pool in your back yard and then never bothering to go swimming in it?

All we're looking at here is the possibility of intelligent design. No one ever mentioned anything about any 'gods'.

I think it's crystal clear that we are this unvierse. After all, if we're not this unvierse then what else would we be?

So if there's an intelligence behind this universe my first guess would be that we're it.

~~~

On a more atheistic side of things, let's assume that there is no intelligent designer.

This converstation and hypotheses still has much worth. In thinking about how intelligent design might be discovered or proven to be the case, I've been able to show that there is indeed evidence that points in that direction that is worthy of further investigation.

Also, from having engaged in this thread I've been stimulated to think of quite a few ideas concerning DNA and the human genome. Or I should say the Earthy Genome since the questions I have would apply to the DNA of every living thing on Earth.

The human genome project currently holds that all life on earth came from a single common cell. Their reasoning actually stems from the fact that every living thing they can find shares about 25% of the human genome.

In other words, everything on Earth basically has the same DNA save for changes that have evolved only after the DNA had already become quite sophisticated.

It dawned on me as soon as I heard this, that this isn't the only plausible exlanation. A second explanation could be that no matter when or where DNA starts up, it always starts up with the same "boot-strap" program. And that program could be responsible for all creatures that have DNA to have very similar starting sequences.

In fact, I've actually been quite interested in this question for some time now. Because, for me, the difference between these two scnearios is humongous. If all life evolved from a single cell, like the human genome project holds, then life is very rare at getting started indeed.

On the other hand, if my hypothesis should happen to turn out to be true, then life may have started evolving in many different places quite easily. It just all looks similar because the only permissible "Boot-strap" program sequence automatically demands that it proceeds along a certain path before it can begin to diverge.

I'm sure that the Human Genome project will eventually get down to this boot-strap program. Potentially in as little as the next 20 years!

It's going to be extremely interesting. So many questions!

Is there only one possible boot-strap sequence?

Is there more than one? If so, how many?

Where do these boot-strap sequences 'send' the DNA (in terms of self-programming). In other words, if you could get two of these things started with the same boot-strap sequence, at what point would they begin to diverge? How many neucleotides down the road before they could begin to diverge?

These are fascinating questions.

And for me, they are even more facinating in terms of the programmer.

What was the programmer thinking who designed this molecule?

It's amazing what you can learn about a person from the way they program a computer. I used to teach computer programming at one point and let me tell you. You could give me a program that one of my students wrote and I could instantly tell you which student wrote the code.

I would love to see this boot-strap program for the DNA molecule.

That would indeed be looking right at the "handwriting" of the creator of this universe.

I'm truly becoming so totally convinced of Intelligent Design that it doesn't even make any sense to pretend otherwise (even to myself).

The idea that DNA just happened by accident to be a self-programming molecule that could not only perform this self-programming task, but also have everything it takes to store that program, unfold it when it needs it, and not easily deteriorate!

My God! It would have been a miracle just to flimsy DNA to be able to become self-programming by pure happenstance. But to be able to not only be the program, but to be the 'hard-drive' TOO! And to be able to fold up and unfold as needed to expose just the right sub-rountines at just the right times?

All that just happend by pure random accident?

I don't think so.

Someone designed that molecule and all the nucleotides that make it up. Someone designed these atoms. They aren't just happenstance.

That's crazy.

I designed enough stuff in my life to know that there are far too many things that would need to come together for this to have just been a freak accident.

This universe was definitely DESIGNED.

As far as I'm concerned DNA itself is the all the proof anyone should need. I'm really in shock that scientists are still pretending that this could have happened by pure random chance.

It has nothing to so with TIME, or how long DNA had to 'evolve'. It's the simple fact that it CAN DO IT that should be all the evidence that's needed.

Any time factors are totally irrelevant.

This universe was designed.

Hi Wux
I think you've brought out more of the point I was trying to make, I was just keeping it open ended. I'm kind of new to science as a field of study but my understanding of science is that we are attempting to understand how things work, seeking knowledge which can be applied to other areas thereby extending our knowledge.

I am totally mystified by mounds information I've been gaining and like many here, I find the complexity of this universe mind-boggeling but I never once considered relating the unknown to a single entity with the power to materialize matter merely from thought.

I think the reason for my simple-minded focus is that I've recognized how much we have learned in the last 500 year. That makes me think that the proplematic obsticles we face today will give rise to answers and 500 years from now there will be entirely new reasons why people want to look to an intelligent designer - all because we still can not explain EVERYTHING.

You have not frustrated me at all. You still have not answered my question regarding what kind of "proof" would you accept. If you cannot even imagine to guess, then why on earth do you demand "proof??"

Yet you claim not to be 'an atheist.' That is very odd considering you are arguing against intelligent design. So is your "God" a dumb guy?

I profess to be an atheist because I do not believe in a "deity creator of the universe." And yet I do see evidence of intelligent design.

And you still talk about proof when I have said a dozen times that proof is a matter of agreement. Yes, I do have proof of intelligent design. The proof is everywhere you look. Our scientists smashing particles, cloning sheep, mapping DNA, designer genes etc. That itself IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

And I asked, and no one wants to answer me... JUST WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT KIND OF SCIENCE IS GOING?

One day do you think we will be able to create and design a human being? Of course we will. We can probably do that right now.

Will we discover something significant from smashing particles? Probably. Will we learn to create and design life forms? Maniplate genes and DNA? That is exactly where we are headed.

We are the designers.

There is not proof unless I can meet the designer myself and talk of the creation of the universe with it.

You cannot prove it so there is no proof to be asked of you.

Your whole post goes into what you think proves something again and it doesn't prove anything except that man is evolving and his mind is growing. Man's intelligence is growing is all you prove there.

I cannot be an atheist because of the fact that I believe in a force outside the accepted scientific forces and that is the energy of life as more than just breathing and surviving. Not because I believe in an intelligent designer which there is no proof of.

So we are back to you cannot prove it because there is no proof and it makes you the same as all others who believe the same as you.

Well, for starters I wouldn't be looking for the actual designer. As far as I'm concerned that would be futile for the following reasons:

1. If the designer wanted to be revealed we'd know it.

The designer would just reveal itself. So clearly if there is a designer, that designer either can't, or won't reveal itself.

If we are the designer, that explains why the designer is not revealing itself. It's a game where the designer gets lost in the game until it FINDS itself. So revealing itself to itself would be counter-productive to the very nature of the game.

2. It is my understanding from the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics that certain knowledge exists that is physically beyond our reach. The mathematics of QM demands that we cannot know certain things. And this isn't because we're not clever enough. It's because this is the nature of physicality. As long as we are in physical form there are certain things about the nature of the quantum field that we can never possibly know, no matter how sophisticated we get. It's forbidden by the mathematics. Period amen.

So either Quantum Mechanics is wrong, or certain information has been forever 'hidden' from us. If there is an Intelligent Designer, then it makes sense to take that as an act of the Intelligent Designer to purposeful forbid us from discovering its darkest secrets.

So we're left with having to be satisfied with just finding evidence of a designer.

1. My first goal would be:

Look at the system and see if happenstance explains it.

If it explains it then I'm done and I don't even need to consider an Intelligent Designer.

So I do that. I'm not happy at all with happenstance as an explanation. Happenstance doesn't explain what I see. To believe this universe is happenstance would be far more outrageous then accepting that the Mona Lisa had been created by a garbage truck splashing mud on a canvass by driving through a mud puddle.

It's not a suitable explanation.

2. My second goal would be to make that result more meaningful

I've already explained in detail why it's unrealistic to think that only 100 random happenstance elements should just accidently do all the things that elements do in this universe. Particularly building themselves into conscious sentient beings.


3. My third goal, would be to look more closely at that DNA programming, particular the "Boot-strap-loader"!

I don't know if you're familiar with what that is, but no computer program can run without one. DNA necessarily must have a "Boot-strap-loading" sequence. That would be my third goal. To study that boot-strap loader in extreme detail.

Unfortunately I don't believe that even the Human Genome Program has a clue where that particular DNA sequence is yet. But I would love to study that baby!

That's precisely where I'd go.

I'm sure they'll find it eventually and when they do that's going to be an extremely exciting time in genetics.

Unfortunately, they'll probably just say, "Look! We found the boot-strap-loading sequence! No need for any God!"

What a bunch of idiots if they do that!

There is so much information that can be had from that little piece of code. That would be GOLD! I'd love to get my hands on that little strip of DNA. What a book that would be! No matter how small it is, the information contained in that boot-strap-loader will be enormous. That would be the information that the designers programmed in by hand! "so-to-speak"



As a scientist I have no "default". If I don't know something I just say so.

Agnostic ring a bell?

That's exactly where I'm at right now.

Although, I confess that I lean toward a designer because as far as I can see that's where the evidence is pointing.

Give me that little DNA boot-strap loader and I'll tell you volumes about the Intelligent Designer.

I find it interesting that this is why you do not self label atheist. If this is the only reason, then this really does not disqualify you at all.

If you do not believe in a diety, then you are not a theist.

Atheist at its core, and most simple definition, which is not the only one certainly, just means you have no belief in god the deity.

Really pantheists are a kind of atheist.
Really deism is a kind of atheist.

Even theists who do not believe in Zues, are Zues atheists.
Everyone is born an atheist.
All agnostics are atheists.

In fact by the simplest definition (of which I like simple definitions myself) almost everyone is some kind of atheist.

The word itself has really been tortured due to the fear of non belief from many large theocracies around the world throughout history, and the definition gets tortured to suite agenda's.

But if we look at the prefix A. Apply the same standards of language that are used in words like Asexual, then anyone without belief in a theistic god is really an atheist.

Its the most simple of words that have anything to do with religion, and yet is the one most scrutinized, and bastardized by theists.

That in itself should be a clue . . . anything so twisted by the religious should be itself known as a misnomer, understood to be misunderstood, held to be misheld.