Intelligent Design, why I can't believe it.

[Papersock]

I posted this in another thread and then decided to start a new thread with it. Hope that's ok.

I realized something the other day that explains the basic problem I have with Intelligent Design. At first I wasn’t sure if my thought actually made since. Perhaps you all could help.

From what I can tell, the theory of Intelligent Design is based on our observation that everything that seems designed is designed (by humans) and that everything is caused by something else (natural forces and intelligence). Therefore, life and the universe is designed and its creation was caused by the designer.

However, the only observed causes have been of physical things causing other physical things. What causes, or creates human intelligence? The physical actions and reactions in our brain creates our consciousness and our intelligence. The only intelligence we can observe (ours and certain animals) exists because of nature. So how could intelligence exist outside of nature in order to create nature?

In order for Intelligent Design to work you have to believe that our consciousness exists outside of our physical bodies, in a soul or something. This is still up to debate, I guess. But I have seen plenty of evidence for our brains controlling our thoughts and consciousness.

 

[Super Universe]

Physical things causing other physical things? What physical thing gives life to a single celled organism? What physical thing leaves an animal when it dies? What physical thing gives self awareness to a human? If you wish to give all the credit to nature then nature is God.

Our brains control our thoughts and consciousness? Sure they do, but the brain does not control our conscience. Think about it, why does your conscience bother you when you do something bad?

The universe is like a million needles stacked end to end, one on top of each other.
Matter does not create itself and it cannot create the laws that control it. Matter does not invent sentience.

How could intelligence exist outside of nature in order to create nature. Research string theory, it describes the universe as a multi-dimensional thing created by strings of energy (a type of energy only theorized) and these strings vibrate with a certain frequency to create each dimension and the things found within. Once you learn about string theory your next question should be this "What's emitting this energy?"

The universe is not pure chaos. It is not pure organization, but a mixture of both.

 

[Willamena]

From what I can tell, the theory of Intelligent Design is based on our observation that everything that seems designed is designed (by humans) and that everything is caused by something else (natural forces and intelligence). Therefore, life and the universe is designed and its creation was caused by the designer.

However, the only observed causes have been of physical things causing other physical things. What causes, or creates human intelligence? The physical actions and reactions in our brain creates our consciousness and our intelligence. The only intelligence we can observe (ours and certain animals) exists because of nature. So how could intelligence exist outside of nature in order to create nature?

In order for Intelligent Design to work you have to believe that our consciousness exists outside of our physical bodies, in a soul or something. This is still up to debate, I guess. But I have seen plenty of evidence for our brains controlling our thoughts and consciousness.

It makes sense to me, what is laid out so far, though it seems to have, as yet, no conclusion.

If intelligence is something the brain does, and the soul is something else, then the whole thing is rather a messed up jumble of misunderstandings.

 

[Willamena]

What physical thing gives life to a single celled organism?

"Life" is not a physical thing but the observation of physical things like movement, growth, warmth, etc. "Life" is a meaningful thing.

What physical thing leaves an animal when it dies?

None. But then what leaves --being meaningful --is not a physical thing.

What physical thing gives self awareness to a human?

The same that gives self-awareness to everything in the universe --the consciousness of the body, and perspective.

If you wish to give all the credit to nature then nature is God.

Then God is nothing more than us?

 

[Super Universe]

Then God is nothing more than us?

Bingo!

 

[Papersock]

I think I could have used a better terminology than "physical things." I mean the natural workings of the universe. Or something like that. I have a hard time puting words to what I'm thinking.

Physical things causing other physical things? What physical thing gives life to a single celled organism? What physical thing leaves an animal when it dies? What physical thing gives self awareness to a human? If you wish to give all the credit to nature then nature is God.

A single celled organism it made up of even simpler natural elements. The smallest bits of the universe we know about are still parts of the natural working of the universe.
The natural actions and reactions in the brain creat self awareness in humans.
When a living thing dies it's natural parts stop working in the same way as when it was alive.
If God is nature, then even God's intelligence is part of nature.

Our brains control our thoughts and consciousness? Sure they do, but the brain does not control our conscience. Think about it, why does your conscience bother you when you do something bad?

I think our conscience is just another part of the inner workings of our brain.

The universe is not pure chaos. It is not pure organization, but a mixture of both.

I agree. Nature acts chaotically but also, in many instances, organizes itself.

 

[Super Universe]

So it's seems more logical to you that matter not only created itself but then it formed the rules that control it's function and movement then matter gave itself sentience?

Scientists like to say that given an infinite amount of time the universe could form the way it has but the odds say otherwise. If the universe tried to form itself and failed on the first attempt then there is no further attempt. Game over.

 

[Willamena]

Scientists like to say that given an infinite amount of time the universe could form the way it has but the odds say otherwise.

What are the odds?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads-up, what are the odds of it landing head's up?

 

[Super Universe]

What are the odds?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads-up, what are the odds of it landing head's up?

The odds are 1 in 2 that a coin will land on heads or tails but the universe isn't 50/50. It's a trillion 50/50's that all happen to hit on the perfect sequence each flip, time after time.

Are you suggesting that the odds are 1 in 2 of atoms creating themselves within a precision of .0000017 and then creating all physical laws (strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetism) to govern them, creating time as well as space, then forming organic compounds, DNA, then giving themselves sentience?

Using the term "odds" isn't really applicable but use your own logic. How likely is it?

 

[Willamena]

The odds are 1 in 2 that a coin will land on heads or tails but the universe isn't 50/50. It's a trillion 50/50's that all happen to hit on the perfect sequence each flip, time after time.

Are you suggesting that the odds are 1 in 2 of atoms creating themselves within a precision of .0000017 and then creating all physical laws (strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetism) to govern them, creating time as well as space, then forming organic compounds, DNA, then giving themselves sentience?

Using the term "odds" isn't really applicable but use your own logic. How likely is it?

Actually, if I flip a coin and it lands head's up, the odds of it landing head's up are precisely 100% because that's the way it happened.

It was a trick question, but in principle it emphasizes that when we look at an event (or a sequence of events through the passage of time) from it's tail-end, after the result, the odds are 100% because that's the way it happened; only when we look at it from it's front end, before "it" happened, do the astronomical odds expressed represent the chances of reaching ONE particular tail-end.

But for the universe, at that front-end point, there is no expectation of what any particular tail-end will be --the universe itself needs no "odds" to reach ANY end-point.

Only the person here AT THE TAIL-END could possibly know which tail-end THEY expect to result from all this. Essentially, you are looking at the lovely tail-end and saying, "Wow! The universe sure is smart and kind for making all those events that led up to me."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

However, the only observed causes have been of physical things causing other physical things.

Not at all true. You need to do some research.


The Aspect experiments in 1982 verified what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Results of these and other experiments undermine the notion that the universe is composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces. In biology, the recently discovered “adaptive response” of the genome flies in the face of the classical Darwinian tenet regarding its isolation. In psychology, experiments with people isolated from each other show both brains reacting when only one is stimulated, indicating a “transpersonal,” if unconscious, connection between them. Various cultures separated by space and time, Aztecs, Zulus, Malays, Etruscans and others, while adding their own embellishments, built monuments and fashioned tools as if following a shared pattern. Crafts, such as pottery, from Egypt, Persia, India and China have striking recurrences of basic forms and design even though those cultures were separated by space and time and apparently no physical contact. “Coincidence” can only go so far in explaining things before it begins to look foolish.

 

[Runlikethewind]

From what I can tell, the theory of Intelligent Design is based on our observation that everything that seems designed is designed (by humans) and that everything is caused by something else (natural forces and intelligence). Therefore, life and the universe is designed and its creation was caused by the designer.

I think intelligent desgin is better defined by saying that the complexities that do exist in nature, like the brain, are better explained by some kind of intelligent influnce then purely random chance causes.

However, the only observed causes have been of physical things causing other physical things. What causes, or creates human intelligence? The physical actions and reactions in our brain creates our consciousness and our intelligence. The only intelligence we can observe (ours and certain animals) exists because of nature. So how could intelligence exist outside of nature in order to create nature?

Of course the only observed causes are physical causes, that is all we can observe. whatever is beyond the physical world is beyond observation by the senses. And while there is defintly a connection between mental activity and brain activity it is far from established that the mind is a result of purely biochemical reactions. And again our five senses can only observe what is physical, they cannot detect that which is non-physical.

In order for Intelligent Design to work you have to believe that our consciousness exists outside of our physical bodies, in a soul or something. This is still up to debate, I guess. But I have seen plenty of evidence for our brains controlling our thoughts and consciousness.

We can detect brain waves and observe indicators of intelligence but there is no reason to assume that this is what causes consciousness. It may be the case that brain activity is an effect of the consciousness or soul effecting the body. Simply put, just because the soul cannot be observed does not mean that it follows necessarily that it is not there. For intelligent design to work you have to belive that there is something more to the universe than what can be observed by the senses. If the body and soul come together not as two separate entities inhabiting the same body, but come together to form a single distinct whole nature, then the actions of one will be indistinguishable from the actions of the other. So evidence that mind activity is connected to brain activity does not prove that the brian is controlling the mind, it could be the other way around.

 

[Super Universe]

Actually, if I flip a coin and it lands head's up, the odds of it landing head's up are precisely 100% because that's the way it happened.

It was a trick question, but in principle it emphasizes that when we look at an event (or a sequence of events through the passage of time) from it's tail-end, after the result, the odds are 100% because that's the way it happened; only when we look at it from it's front end, before "it" happened, do the astronomical odds expressed represent the chances of reaching ONE particular tail-end.

But for the universe, at that front-end point, there is no expectation of what any particular tail-end will be --the universe itself needs no "odds" to reach ANY end-point.

Only the person here AT THE TAIL-END could possibly know which tail-end THEY expect to result from all this. Essentially, you are looking at the lovely tail-end and saying, "Wow! The universe sure is smart and kind for making all those events that led up to me."

And you avoided my question. Which is more likely?

 

[logician]

So it's seems more logical to you that matter not only created itself but then it formed the rules that control it's function and movement then matter gave itself sentience?

Scientists like to say that given an infinite amount of time the universe could form the way it has but the odds say otherwise. If the universe tried to form itself and failed on the first attempt then there is no further attempt. Game over.

So how could a superintelligent being spring from nothingness? Who or what created god? Was there a first god? Are there an infinte number of gods?

 

[Super Universe]

So how could a superintelligent being spring from nothingness? Who or what created god? Was there a first god? Are there an infinte number of gods?

Ahh, you have to have this answer before you will believe. I'm sorry but you can't hold God hostage. Obviously He doesn't feel the need to inform you of His origin or actions.

Oh, by the way, I know the answers to your questions, I've even posted them on this forum in the past but why should I waste my time when you wouldn't believe it anyway?

In fact, why are you here? Oh, hehe, I'm sorry to be ironic. I guess you don't know the answer to that, do you? Guess that means you don't truly exist then. An even better reason not to waste my time...

 

[Papersock]

So how could a superintelligent being spring from nothingness? Who or what created god? Was there a first god? Are there an infinte number of gods?

The logic that I have heard is that God doesn't have to have been created by anything because he always existed. Though it doesn't make sense to me, that's the view some people seem to have.

 

[Papersock]

I think intelligent desgin is better defined by saying that the complexities that do exist in nature, like the brain, are better explained by some kind of intelligent influnce then purely random chance causes.

That does sound like a better definition. Howevery, I don't think everything was created by purely random chance causes. It seems that natural causes build on top of each other, each change dependent on the last.

Of course the only observed causes are physical causes, that is all we can observe. whatever is beyond the physical world is beyond observation by the senses. And while there is defintly a connection between mental activity and brain activity it is far from established that the mind is a result of purely biochemical reactions. And again our five senses can only observe what is physical, they cannot detect that which is non-physical.

The argument for Intelligent Design that I read was saying that Intelligent Design can be logically proven by our observations of nature. My point was that we have only observed natural processes because that's all we really can observe.
But you're right, whether the mental activity is completely dependent on brain activity is still up for debate. But from the evidence that I've seen up to now, it seems likely that we are our brain.

So evidence that mind activity is connected to brain activity does not prove that the brian is controlling the mind, it could be the other way around.

This is an interesting viewpoint.

 

[Papersock]

Not at all true. You need to do some research.


The Aspect experiments in 1982 verified what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Results of these and other experiments undermine the notion that the universe is composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces. In biology, the recently discovered “adaptive response” of the genome flies in the face of the classical Darwinian tenet regarding its isolation. In psychology, experiments with people isolated from each other show both brains reacting when only one is stimulated, indicating a “transpersonal,” if unconscious, connection between them. Various cultures separated by space and time, Aztecs, Zulus, Malays, Etruscans and others, while adding their own embellishments, built monuments and fashioned tools as if following a shared pattern. Crafts, such as pottery, from Egypt, Persia, India and China have striking recurrences of basic forms and design even though those cultures were separated by space and time and apparently no physical contact. “Coincidence” can only go so far in explaining things before it begins to look foolish.

I should do more research. There is always more research to be done.
I don't think cultural similarities is a coincidence. Maybe the similar building construction and inventions have something to do with all of our brains being built the same way, since we are all related.
It is difficult to have any opinions without someone making you look foolish. I was sticking my neck out when starting this thread (more than I usually do). But if I want to learn, I must take chances, right?

 

[Papersock]

So it's seems more logical to you that matter not only created itself but then it formed the rules that control it's function and movement then matter gave itself sentience?

Not exactly. I think the rules kind of exist on their own, because that's just the way matter behaves. Perhaps the only way it can behave.

Scientists like to say that given an infinite amount of time the universe could form the way it has but the odds say otherwise. If the universe tried to form itself and failed on the first attempt then there is no further attempt. Game over.

Why is that?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

But if I want to learn, I must take chances, right?

Bingo. There is wisdom in uncertainty. Yet, no one has ever seen a black hole, an electromagnetic field, or even light. These things are perceived by their effects. But with the possible exception of the black hole, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who denies their existence.

With so many anomalies popping up throughout all the sciences, some of the bold scientists are taking the initiative and going public with their unorthodox ideas. You can go to any bookstore or library and find their books. The hypothetical “ether,” once though to be disproved, is being resurrected howbeit in a much modified form. Now commonly called the “zero-point field” or ZPF, it is thought by some to be the “superdense” and “hyperfluid” substratum instantly carrying energy-information from one end of the universe to the other. The ZPF is fundamental, or, at least, more fundamental than matter. It is a cosmic “information field” connecting organisms and minds to everything else throughout the cosmos. Rupert Skeldrake’s “morphic fields,” Carl Jung’s “collective unconscious,” and Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere find correspondence in the ZPF, and scientists such as Erin Schrödinger, David Bohm, and Henry Stapp have not hesitated to affirm it.

In the context of ZPF theory a “closed mind” takes on a whole new meaning, one far more literal than generally assumed. Materialistic-minded persons quite literally make themselves outcasts in the universe. No evidence of God’s existence? “To say that Reality is quite beyond thought, and therefore cannot be designated by such small, human terms as “conscious” and “intelligent” is only to say that God is immeasurably greater than man. And the theist will agree that he is infinitely greater. To argue that Reality s not a blind energy but a “living principle,” an “impersonal super-consciousness,” or an “impersonal mind” is merely to play with words and indulge u terminological contradictions. A “living principle” means about as much as a black whiteness, and to speak of an “impersonal mind” is like talking about a circular square. It is the result, of course, of misunderstanding the word “personal” as used of God— as if it meant that God is an organism, form, or composite structure like man….But the word is not used at all in that sense. From many points of view the term “personal” is badly chosen, but it means simply that God is alive in the fullest possible way.” (From Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts )

How, then, does a rational person say there is no evidence of God’s existence? A fish does not see the water in which it swims, but it is can know with certainty the water exists. How? Because it swims. This is not to say anyone swims while conscious of the water can fully comprehend that what is my definition infinite. Radios tuned to different frequencies aren’t going to receive the same stations no matter how perfect the reception. The best on can do is say, "I know God is because I "swim." "