Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Does the designer have to be "God"?- revisited

This seems like a good time to bring the following back to the top: As I have stated many times now, the designer could be "God" and that it doesn't matter if it was/ is. But does the designer have to be "God"? Absolutely not. The designer(s) need not have anything to do with eternal salvation nor eternal damnation. The designer(s) need not have any requirement for worship. All religions could be man-made nonsense and the designer(s) wouldn't care. The designer(s) need not have supernatural powers. The designer(s) need not be supernatural. The designer(s) need not be caring, loving nor judgemental. The designer(s) need not have a personal relationship with anything nor anyone. The designer(s) need not be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent. Guillermo Gonzalez said that Intelligent Design does not require a belief in "God". Any questions?

posted by Joe G @ 10:26 AM  

34 Comments:

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.” - John Stewart to William Dembski.

     

  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    Thanks for proving that you are a moron.

    The opening post says that the designer does NOT need the "same skill set" as "God".

    And here you chime in with a quote from another ignorant moron who thinks that just saying something makes it so.

    Do you think if you keep posting that enough it will become a reality?

     

  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Cosmological design, a subset of Intelligent design, doesn't require the same skillset as god?

     

  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cosmological design, a subset of Intelligent design, doesn't require the same skillset as god?

    Guillermo Gonzalez said that Intelligent Design does not require a belief in "God".

    Gonzalez is one of the people pushing cosmological design.

    What part of the following DON'T you understand?:

    The designer(s) need not have anything to do with eternal salvation nor eternal damnation.

    The designer(s) need not have any requirement for worship.

    All religions could be man-made nonsense and the designer(s) wouldn't care.

    The designer(s) need not have supernatural powers.

    The designer(s) need not be supernatural.

    The designer(s) need not be caring, loving nor judgemental.

    The designer(s) need not have a personal relationship with anything nor anyone.

    The designer(s) need not be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent.

     

  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    But the designer lives outside of nature (supernatural) because he creates the universe. And then he creates something natural when using non-natural process (supernatural powers).


    Good luck.

     

  • At 12:33 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    The designer doesn't need supernatural powers in order to create nature?

    That doesn't seem right somehow...

    Does this have something to do with nonnatural Gods?

    p.s. if I have to keep using that stupid word "nonnatural" on your blog can you do something about the spell-checker?

     

  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The designer doesn't need supernatural powers in order to create nature?

    No.

    Does the materialistic posdition require the supernatural seeing that even that positioon requires something beyond nature to account for it?

    That doesn't seem right somehow...

    True it doesn't seem right that both the materialistic position and ID regress back to THE SAME POINT, yet only ID requires the supernatural in the opinion of anti-IDists.

    So how can that be?

    If both positions require something beyond nature then either they both require the supernatural or neither does.

     

  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But the designer lives outside of nature (supernatural) because he creates the universe.

    Nonnatural Rich. Anything outside of nature is nonnatural.

    And then he creates something natural when using non-natural process (supernatural powers).

    How do you know that nonnatural processes indicate supernatural powers?

    And how do you explain the fact that YOUR position regresses to the same point and doesn't require the supernatural?

    Double-standards.

    Ya see buckwheat, when it comes to the origins of the universe, whatever you accuse ID of holds true for your position.

     

  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    In theory (you know, the one that IDers have presented so clearly and well), what process would a designer use to create nature--that wasn't a natural process of course?

     

  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In theory (you know, the one that IDers have presented so clearly and well), what process would a designer use to create nature--that wasn't a natural process of course?

    I have said this too many times to count:

    Reality dictates the the ONLY possible way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    What part about that don't you understand?

    Ya see clowny for all we know the designer(s) are beings from another dimension with technology we can't yet comprehend. These beings can be just as mortal and finite as we are.

    In that way the process would be an artificial process.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of that.

     

  • At 3:51 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    joe want us to prove a negative, and until we do (and we can't, yet), he will continue to believe whatever he wants, as if the absence or negative proof makes his fantasy true. What a moron.

    Dude, your whole telic-based reality is ethereal. You have no footing, only hope. Good luck. Moron.

     

  • At 2:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Without playing semantic games about the equivocation of non natural and supernatural, if you can create something you are an order above it so it would be supernatural. Sorry, Joe.

    Equivocation is show by the sharing of a common antonym, natural.

     

  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Without playing semantic games about the equivocation of non natural and supernatural, if you can create something you are an order above it so it would be supernatural.

    Non sequitur.

    And how do you explain the fact that YOUR position regresses to the same point and doesn't require the supernatural?

    Double-standards.

    Ya see buckwheat, when it comes to the origins of the universe, whatever you accuse ID of holds true for your position.

     

  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tft:joe want us to prove a negative,

    I do? Could you please tell me what negative I want you to prove?

    Dude, your whole telic-based reality is ethereal.

    And your non-telic based position is unscientific.

    However you could prove me wrong by providing a testable hypothesis for your non-telic position.

     

  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For all we know the designer(s) are beings from another dimension with technology we can't yet comprehend. These beings can be just as mortal and finite as we are.

    In that way the process would be an artificial process.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of that.

    A more advanced technology with knowledge we don't yet possess, does not make it supernatural.

     

  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    They've not ovecome their moratality, but they're banging out new dimensions and universes.



    Joe, is your home decorated with tinfoil?

     

  • At 5:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And how do you explain the fact that YOUR position regresses to the same point and doesn't require the supernatural?

    Double-standards.

    Ya see buckwheat, when it comes to the origins of the universe, whatever you accuse ID of holds true for your position.

    Obvious Richie's brains are tinfoil...

    They've not ovecome their moratality, but they're banging out new dimensions and universes.

    We haven't overcome many things yet we can send probes about the solar system and men to the Moon.

    Did you have a point?

    And why are you avoiding the obvious? That being that if ID requires the supernatural then so does your position.

    Or perhaps you are prepared to explain how natural processes can account for the origin of nature when natural processes only exist in nature?

    Ya see you little dillweed, once in Court whoever is against ID will have to explain that.

    And once the obvious is exposed all you dickheads will be able to do is to continue to wallow in your ignorance.

     

  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Without playing semantic games about the equivocation of non natural and supernatural, if you can create something you are an order above it so it would be supernatural.

    Artificial is an order above "natural".

     

  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So an artificial apple (say a plastic one) has more CSI than a real apple? Can we see the calculation?

     

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So an artificial apple (say a plastic one) has more CSI than a real apple?

    If you say so.

    Can we see the calculation?

    It's your claim. Start counting the bits of information required to bring each into existence.

    The higher number "wins".

    Do you have a point?

    My point is that artificial is basically anything that nature, operating freely, cannot or would not produce. And it is a given that nature, operating freely cannot account for the origin of nature.

    And why do you continue to ignore the following:

    And how do you explain the fact that YOUR position regresses to the same point and doesn't require the supernatural?

    Double-standards.

    Ya see buckwheat, when it comes to the origins of the universe, whatever you accuse ID of holds true for your position.

     

  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So an artificial apple (say a plastic one) has more CSI than a real apple?

    One could only say for sure if the artificial apple created the real apple. That is if we apply Richie's logic.

    However there is a contradiction as the artificial apple is also real. And they both exist in nature and therefor they are both natural.

     

  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Who designed the plastic apple?

     

  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does a plastic apple require a designer? Why or why not?

     

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, Joe. It is YOUR claim. You said that artificial is an order above natural. Try to remember what you yourself say; it makes things easier.

    I took this to mean that Artificial is more complex than Natural. If that is the case, then Artificial should have more CSI, correct?

    If this is not your meaning, please be more clear in what you mean by "artificial is an order above natural".

    Thanks for clearing up your meaning.

     

  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    However there is a contradiction as the artificial apple is also real. And they both exist in nature and therefor they are both natural.

    Are you saying that we can only study natural things? If that is the case, how do you suppose that we study the whatever that created nature?

     

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So an artificial apple (say a plastic one) has more CSI than a real apple?

    If you say so.

    Can we see the calculation?

    It's your claim.

    No, Joe. It is YOUR claim.

    I never said anything about apples. You pulled this one out of your ass just as you do every other time.

    Therefor it is all yours.

    You said that artificial is an order above natural.

    Yes, and I explained it:

    My point is that artificial is basically anything that nature, operating freely, cannot or would not produce. And it is a given that nature, operating freely cannot account for the origin of nature.

    I took this to mean that Artificial is more complex than Natural.

    OK.

    If that is the case, then Artificial should have more CSI, correct?

    Only if the artificial CREATED the natural. TRY to stay in-context.

    However there is a contradiction as the artificial apple is also real. And they both exist in nature and therefor they are both natural.

    Are you saying that we can only study natural things?

    We can only study that which we can observe. And we can observe the design in nature.

    If that is the case, how do you suppose that we study the whatever that created nature?

    What have scientists been doing? Or do they even care? And how is it relevant?

    Can you tell me why it is important to study the designers BEFORE making a design inference and then to set out investigating it?

    Or are you going to continue to be an ignorant clown?

    I predict you will continue the ignorant clown bit. That with a lot of moronic imbecile thrown in would be par for the course.

     

  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    To study design we would have to observe the designing itself, Joe. Since that is off limits, what exactly are we studying? The nature of nature? We're already doing that.

     

  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    By "artificial" you mean designer?

     

  • At 10:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To study design we would have to observe the designing itself, Joe.

    That is false and goes against reality- ie all experience.

    Archaeologists look for signs of work- they weren't there to see the work.

    Do you think you can win an argument by an ignorant decree?

    No one alive today observed Stonehenge- IOW we didn't observe the designing of Stonehenge- nor did we observe the designing of the lines on the Nasca (Peru) Plains.

    What, exactly, does a clown know about design detection?

    Since that is off limits, what exactly are we studying?

    The design. Ya see reality also dictates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via intent or not.

    Homicide detectives do not investigate a natural death.

    By "artificial" you mean designer?

    The process.


    And how do you explain the fact that YOUR position regresses to the same point and doesn't require the supernatural?

    Double-standards.

    Ya see buckwheat, when it comes to the origins of the universe, whatever you accuse ID of holds true for your position.

    BTW thank you for fulfilling my prediction:

    I predict you will continue the ignorant clown bit. That with a lot of moronic imbecile thrown in would be par for the course.

    If we knew the designer(s), and watched the designing, then what would we need science for- design would be a given.

    But thanks for proving you are a scientifically illiterate clown.

     

  • At 10:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the nature of nature seeing that natural processes cannot account for nature's origins?

     

  • At 1:06 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Archaeologists look for signs of work that was done by humans, using methods that we know humans employed. Archaeologists don't look for processes that they don't understand. If they find something that they can't explain using the lexicon of known methods of design, they don't assume that it was designed.

     

  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Archaeologists look for signs of work that was done by humans, using methods that we know humans employed.

    That is false. First they find signs of work. And THEN they try to determine who/ what caused it.

    For all archaeologists know aliens built Stonehenge. Supernatural beings could have designed it for all archaeologists care.

    Archaeologists don't look for processes that they don't understand.

    They don't look for processes. But they can and do try to figure out a process that may/ would have given the same or similar result.

    If they find something that they can't explain using the lexicon of known methods of design, they don't assume that it was designed.

    How do you know what archaeologists do? I have been on digs, have you?

    "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day."--Dr Behe

    “Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
    In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”     --
    Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"

     

  • At 3:14 AM, Blogger CJYman said…

    blipey:
    "If they find something that they can't explain using the lexicon of known methods of design, they don't assume that it was designed."

    You are partially on to something here, blipey. However, Stonehenge was known to be designed long before it was even remotely discovered how it might have possibly been designed. First the design detection, then the design method detection. The same holds true for ancient tools. "Oh look we have a designed tool" -- design detection based on context, analogy, and function (functional specificity). "Now let's discover a reasonable hypothesis as to how it was designed" -- design method detection. It quite elementary, actually.

    As an aside, specification as an indicator of design is also based on context, analogy, and specificity. It is based within a probabilistic context, draws from the fact that intelligence routinely creates specifications, and it incorporates specificity (which includes, but is not limited to, function). Furthermore, there is to date no counter-example of properly calculated specified complexity that is observed to have been caused by a random set of laws (merely chance and law).

    Now, let's just assume you actually knew what you were talking about. Does the reverse of what you assert hold true? If they find something that they CAN explain using the lexicon of known methods of design, do they assume that it WAS designed?

    ie: life is based on an information processing system that follows an evolutionary algorithm.

    There is much hardware and software design and goal oriented engineering and programming that goes into the creation of information processing systems that can run an evolutionary algorithm.

    The application of these engineering and programming principles are KNOWN METHODS OF INTELLIGENT, GOAL ORIENTED DESIGN that are essential in the generation of information processing systems and evolutionary algorithms.

    What's more, systems that run off of information and engineering principles harness and control natural law and chance however these very principles themselves are not defined by chance and natural law. Yet, 100% of the time that we are aware of the causal history of these systems, we know that they are the products of previous KNOWN METHODS OF INTELLIGENT, GOAL ORIENTED DESIGN.

     

  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks again CJYman, but blipey is a clown and not interested in anything but his own agenda.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home