Atheists are now supporting intelligent design

[Walkntune]

Huh? I said I wish Einstein didn't try to be so poetic with his descriptions so that people like you wouldn't misunderstand them and twist them around to support nonsense that Einstein clearly didn't support.

I am pretty clear on his view without twisting.

That seems to be true, AFAIK. But didn't you just say that energy causes matter? That is not quite the same thing.

Look at it more like this from Einsteins perspective.

"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
— Albert Einstein

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/9810.Albert_Einstein
It is the materialistic view in science that
has ran far astray from scientists such as Einstein and Tesla.

 

[Magic Man]

I am pretty clear on his view without twisting.

That doesn't even make sense, but thanks.

Look at it more like this from Einsteins perspective.

It is the materialistic view in science that
has ran far astray from scientists such as Einstein and Tesla.

Yes, I think it's common knowledge that Einstein said that matter is energy, but that's a far cry from what you said before.

 

[Walkntune]

If I am not mistaken, that is a popular misconception. Meow Mix has addressed it on occasion. I believe it is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Of course those in popular mainstream disagree the same as they describe the God of Spinoza as only meaning the universe or nature. The part that they tend to leave out is the fact that this God of Spinoza and God Einstein believed in is the fact that the universe is all one substance and all one and the same.
The very intelligence you are trying to use to determine whether intelligent design exists is the very design itself.There is no natural processes and all is deterministic under the influence of this one and same substance of all creation.

 

[Tathagata]

False. You cannot be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design. You can believe that an alien race created humans, but that's not Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design requires an original creator who created all life. That would be a god. Since you're an atheist, you don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe in Intelligent Design.


This is very simple. Either the creator of humans was an alien race that's just far more advanced than humans, which is not ID, or it's some kind of god that created all life and the universe, which is ID.

Completely and utterly false. You are confusing creationism with intelligent design. Creationism involves a being who acts as creator, whereas intelligent design merely involves an intelligence in the universe which doesn't necessarily come in the form of a being.

In fact, I find this very insulting because you basically disregard all the Panpsychists and Buddhists and say they don't exist.

The Buddhists are a perfect example of those who are Atheist, but believe in an intelligent Universe.

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout." the Buddha [Culla Vagga 6:2]

You don't seem to understand that its possible for there to be a pervasive intelligence without there being an actual supreme being who created everything.


.

 

[Autodidact]

Completely and utterly false. You are confusing creationism with intelligent design. Creationism involves a being who acts as creator, whereas intelligent design merely involves an intelligence in the universe which doesn't necessarily come in the form of a being.

In fact, I find this very insulting because you basically disregard all the Panpsychists and Buddhists and say they don't exist.

The Buddhists are a perfect example of those who are Atheist, but believe in an intelligent Universe.

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout." the Buddha [Culla Vagga 6:2]

You don't seem to understand that its possible for there to be a pervasive intelligence without there being an actual supreme being who created everything.


.

That's why it would be helpful if the OP would explain just what he means by "Intelligent Design." What you are describing is not what is meant by people like the Discovery Institute, which is who is advancing the idea right now.

 

[Magic Man]

Completely and utterly false. You are confusing creationism with intelligent design. Creationism involves a being who acts as creator, whereas intelligent design merely involves an intelligence in the universe which doesn't necessarily come in the form of a being.

In fact, I find this very insulting because you basically disregard all the Panpsychists and Buddhists and say they don't exist.

The Buddhists are a perfect example of those who are Atheist, but believe in an intelligent Universe.

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker ...The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout." the Buddha [Culla Vagga 6:2]

You don't seem to understand that its possible for there to be a pervasive intelligence without there being an actual supreme being who created everything.


.

Nope, sorry, not confusing anything. The Intelligent Design movement is about the Christian God. They make it vague enough to pretend that it's not specifically so that they can make arguments like this. "See? Even atheists are supporting intelligent design." But they don't want people to agree to some vague notion of energy. The goal is for people to say "Huh, yeah, maybe intelligent design is a viable option". Then it's "See? More people are supporting Intelligent Design". It's all about equivocating. Just like there is a set definition people use when talking bout creationism, there is a set definition for intelligent design as well.

And by the way, you're not talking about intelligent design of any kind anyway. You're just talking about there being an intelligence, not that it designed the universe, as intelligent design proposes.

 

[Mr Bytor]

Raelians are atheists, yet they've always accepted intelligent design. They just think the intelligent designer was a race of space aliens from another planet.

 

[ellenjanuary]

If I am not mistaken, that is a popular misconception. Meow Mix has addressed it on occasion. I believe it is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if it turns out to be a correct interpretation... well, Quantum Physics is still Quantum Physics. It doesn't really have any relation to human nature or to Biology.

Also, see this:

Observer (quantum physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Observer" is a far more mechanical concept than you would need it to be to support your extrapolations.

It depends on your perspective and expectations, I think.

That seems to be true, AFAIK. But didn't you just say that energy causes matter? That is not quite the same thing.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is simply a joining of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and Bohr's Complementariness. Last time I checked, there were eighteen different variations of quantum theory floating around; for fitting the available evidence, the Cophenhagen Interpretation is about the worst. Ya got that part right. But science is intensely conservative, so many scientists are stuck with the CI.

What I said was based on many different sources and is comparatively new, but those references were on my computer... and now, I don't have a computer. Pretty dry stuff, anyway.

 

[monta]

Atheists are now supporting Intelligent Design

We are? Why didn't I get the memo? This is so embarrassing I haven't been supporting it at all, I've been going around saying it is a trumped up doctrine of nonsense and a sneaky back handed move by duplicitous, sanctimonious and hypocritically dishonest creationists, boy is my face red

 

[ellenjanuary]

If I am not mistaken, that is a popular misconception. Meow Mix has addressed it on occasion. I believe it is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks for the link. I love that place... it's funny, I can handle quantum theory, but philosophy? That stuff's too confusing.

From what I gathered, the confusion arises from a misinterpretation of Complementariness based on what Bohr said back in the day... and yeah, we ain't back in the day. My ideas arise from quantum decoherence (it was mentioned in the link) and stuff arising from new thinking in quantum chromodynamics - and yeah, it's pretty dry stuff. But quantum theory has everything to do with everything. The search for a quantum computer has led to the sneaking suspicion one already exists - the human brain.

And that was Walkintune with the "matter causing energy." Watch out for that guy... he's got an agenda.

 

[Magic Man]

Raelians are atheists, yet they've always accepted intelligent design. They just think the intelligent designer was a race of space aliens from another planet.

Right, and that's quite a bit different than the Intelligent Design movement, meaning calling that "intelligent design" is inaccurate. It's like saying "The Super Bowl is the most important sports game there is because most of the world loves football" disregarding the fact that the football the rest of the world loves is completely different from American football.

 

[ellenjanuary]

That's why I just hate on intelligent design, and apologize after.

"Atheists are now supporting intelligent design" doesn't bug me nearly as much as "Atheists are now supporting Intelligent Design" would - and I'm not even an atheist. There seem to be a few people here that support ID - I ain't really got a problem with them. My problem is with ID itself as a mathematician and amateur scientist - in those terms (math and science) ID is straight crap.

 

[Tathagata]

Nope, sorry, not confusing anything. The Intelligent Design movement

Who said anything about the Intelligent Design movement???? We are talking about intelligent design in the philosophical sense and that is exactly what the OP intended. Obviously, if the OP made a thread about Atheists supporting intelligent design, clearly he is speaking of the philosophic notion of intelligent design that is friendly to Atheism.

is about the Christian God. They make it vague enough to pretend that it's not specifically so that they can make arguments like this. "See? Even atheists are supporting intelligent design." But they don't want people to agree to some vague notion of energy. The goal is for people to say "Huh, yeah, maybe intelligent design is a viable option". Then it's "See? More people are supporting Intelligent Design".

Yeah, I know what the Intelligent Design movement does.

It's all about equivocating. Just like there is a set definition people use when talking bout creationism, there is a set definition for intelligent design as well.

Yes, and obviously we are talking about about the unequivocated notion of intelligent design. Why would you bring up the ID movement and it's false definition in the first place? It is irrelevant to this thread.

And by the way, you're not talking about intelligent design of any kind anyway. You're just talking about there being an intelligence, not that it designed the universe, as intelligent design proposes.

If the Universe is intelligent, and all that we see in the world is a product of the processes in the Universe, then you have intelligent design. Intelligent design doesn't have to necessitate an external entity designing the world, it could also be intelligence in nature designing the things in the Universe.


.

.

 

[Magic Man]

Who said anything about the Intelligent Design movement????

That's what the term "intelligent design" refers to. If you're talking about something else more general, a different term should be used so as not to confuse things or equivocate.

We are talking about intelligent design in the philosophical sense and that is exactly what the OP intended. Obviously, if the OP made a thread about Atheists supporting intelligent design, clearly he is speaking of the philosophic notion of intelligent design that is friendly to Atheism.

Yes, and the idea is to say "See? Even atheists support intelligent design" as if that supports the idea that there is a god. Otherwise there's no need for the term "intelligent design".

Yeah, I know what the Intelligent Design movement does.

OK, then you should understand that that's exactly the point of the OP.

Yes, and obviously we are talking about about the unequivocated notion of intelligent design. Why would you bring up the ID movement and it's false definition in the first place? It is irrelevant to this thread.

No, it's not. It's the point of the thread. The point of the thread is a bait-and-switch. You get people giving credence to the term "intelligent design", and then when it comes to the real meaning of the term, the Intelligent Design movement, the idea is people will give it that same level of respect because it's the same term. I didn't use a false definition. If you're not talking about a god creating everything intelligently, then you shouldn't be using the term "intelligent design", since that's the meaning of it.

If the Universe is intelligent, and all that we see in the world is a product of the processes in the Universe, then you have intelligent design. Intelligent design doesn't have to necessitate an external entity designing the world, it could also be intelligence in nature designing the things in the Universe.


.

.

But that doesn't really make sense. If the universe is intelligent, it is a living being, and it didn't create itself.

Anyway, the main point is that the term "intelligent design" has been taken. You might not like it, but the term has been hijacked.

 

[idea]

Not to mention even without religious undertones the multiverse theory is still completely unfalsifiable and completely unscientific. It's just a "hey, wouldn't it be neat", idea. As such it still has not business in a science class.

I always thought the multiverse theory was the only alternative to ID fine tuning... that given enough universes, one of them would appear to be fine tuned etc. etc. so it was either multiverse, or fine tuned...

although really, if there is a multiverse, then everything exists (including us, including God)

– string theory, M-theory, brane’s, all the TOE’s (Theory of everything’s) rely on multidimensional euclidean spaces - tesseract kinds of stuff... I can see other universes existing within other dims...

[youtube]Y9KT4M7kiSw[/youtube]
YouTube - Carl Sagan 4th Dimension Explanation

I think we will one day see higher dims, and that this will be like looking into another universe... I think God might be higher dimensional...

 

[Gunfingers]

I always thought the multiverse theory was the only alternative to ID fine tuning... that given enough universes, one of them would appear to be fine tuned etc. etc. so it was either multiverse, or fine tuned...

The "Fine Tuned Universe" conjecture doesn't need an alternative, because it isn't an explanation. It's just puddle logic, and not even very good puddle logic considering how very little of the universe we can actually survive in.

 

[idea]

The "Fine Tuned Universe" conjecture doesn't need an alternative, because it isn't an explanation. It's just puddle logic, and not even very good puddle logic considering how very little of the universe we can actually survive in.

Just because we can't live on the sun, doesn't mean that we don't need the sun to survive.... I think the stars are nice, and like all the space that we have.

but tell me, if you think there is something better, can you do any better? which of the following constants would you change in order to make the universe more habitable? (If you think that it in fact can be made more habitable?)

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry


if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

1. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
2. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
3. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
4. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
5. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
6. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
7. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
8. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
9. mass density of the universe
   if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
   if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
10. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
11. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
12. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
13. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
14. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
15. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
16. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
17. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
18. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
19. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
20. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
21. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
23. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
24. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
25. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
26. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
27. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
28. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
29. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
30. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
31. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
32. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
33. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If there are no better values for any of the above, that means they are all optimally set.

 

[outhouse]

If there are no better values for any of the above, that means they are all optimally set.

this is your opinion

it is also poor science in my opinion and nothing more then creationist mental masterbation

 

[Father Heathen]

Raelians are atheists, yet they've always accepted intelligent design. They just think the intelligent designer was a race of space aliens from another planet.

Then who intelligently designed the aliens? And I would say the ability to create a universe qualities for godhood status.

 

[outhouse]

Then who intelligently designed the aliens? And I would say the ability to create a universe qualities for godhood status.

LOL

ive never heard that kind of belief