tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post7965093649212949278..comments2023-05-20T03:31:57.222-07:00Comments on Simon's Mental Logs: Chicken or the egg: An argument for intelligent designSimonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-78167952771967624032012-04-04T00:11:06.428-07:002012-04-04T00:11:06.428-07:00(continued)
If the question of "why" ca...(continued)<br /><br />If the question of "why" can be answered in such a manner ("God did it"), then why is it a red herring? Science cannot answer the questions of "why". They merely explain "how". "Why" is a philosophical question, thus there can be no wrong answer. Value in these answers is a personal issue, not universal. It's personal because each person must accept the answer. "How" may be universal, but I argue that the "how" is merely describing process and not origin, thus science is more of a red herring because you're claiming you know, but you really don't have a clue. It's merely a surface level physical observable, rooted in physical reality, defined in terms of physical reality. For example, the question of "how does a new person come to be?" would be answered as "by a sperm and egg combining and becoming fertilized...blah blah blah.". This doesn't really explain where your identity comes from, why you are the way you are, etc. This answer is only the physical process of how your body came to be. Nothing of a non-physical nature is answered. Which brings up the question of "where is the 'I'"? Is the "I" the body or your mind?<br /><br />I think atheists assume much without a good basis for those assumptions. Because of this, they think they're explaining things, but in fact, they don't really explain anything. They merely describe process, which has no value. The value is in the purpose of knowing the explanation, which is to apply that knowledge. This is taken for granted by those who profess science as the only truth, and yet I've heard many times that "purpose" is irrelevent.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-62690069573375725882012-04-04T00:10:53.255-07:002012-04-04T00:10:53.255-07:00After reading my responses, the grammatical and pu...After reading my responses, the grammatical and punctuational errors made my point confusing so I'm going to rewrite and augment my original response.<br /><br />When you say "kicks the can farther down the road", this is true for all unknowns. There is always that question of "then what?" for any explanation. For example, if I said the universe was created by a big bang, the next questions is "what created the big bang?" So the argument that claiming "God did it" is no different than saying "The Big Bang did it" as far as "kicking the can" goes so it can't be argued as being "more complex".<br /><br />Just because there are more questions to an answer doesn't mean that saying an intelligent designer exists is more complex nor does it negate the answer. Do you throw out an explanation in science just because the answer seems more complex or because more questions arise from that answer? The question of who designed the designer isn't complex. If you believe that an intelligent creator was created as well, then it becomes an infinite notion. This isn't complex, if you can think outside of physical ideas. But that doesn't make it a problem any more than saying space is infinite. In fact, the world is a mandelbrot; the closer you look, the similar it is to the larger portion (planets vs. atoms) and there is infinity at the planetary and atomic levels. In any case, there is precedence for intelligent design within the physical system: you were the creation of your parents. Your parents were the creation of their parents. So on and so forth. Occam's Razor for the question of "where did I come from" is "from my parents". They were the intelligent creators and is the simplest answer.<br /><br />If I say "no one" created the perceived universe, then the question of "where did you come from" makes no sense. You were born of intelligent creators, your parents. If you apply "no one" to the question of your physical existence, you'd say that's silly because you "know" you came from your parents, because someone told you so. So why would you think it strange to believe the universe came from a creator, especially knowing you don't know where or how it came to be? If I say "the designer does not need a designer", it doesn't necessarily prove the designer did not have a designer, as I mentioned. But, we're talking about two different systems of reality: physical and non-physical. What is the properties of the non-physical? If it's unknown, how can you assume they behave the same? If you believe the non-physical does not exist, then I would ask why you think the physical exists, knowing that matter is really non-physical energy (maybe you don't know or accept this)?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-41421280726978275462012-04-02T12:15:17.217-07:002012-04-02T12:15:17.217-07:00One more comment regarding "who designed the ...One more comment regarding "who designed the designer".<br /><br />I believe the assumption to this question is based on the notion that because we are all individual and independent identities, that the "God" consciousness is separate and apart from "us". What if there is really only One consciousness and we are an aspect of that consciousness (like dream characters)? Then we were not created, but rather, we are a part of the one identity. This may be difficult to accept, and I'm not saying that our own independent identities do not exist because it does. Rather, I'm suggesting that the One consciousness, which is not physical and is not in a system where time exists, simply is. The One consciousness may have been created, but if that is the case, perhaps it too is a part of a greater single consciousness. This is the natural aspect of infinity. I am a part of a greater part, which is part of a greater part, ad infinitum. If this is true, why is this so difficult to accept if the possibility is there, except because you choose not to accept it? We know that the law of nature says you will die after some number of years. No one denies this simply because they do not want to accept it. In the same way, outside of the physical laws of this reality, maybe things have no beginning or end? If you only look for answers within the system, then you will only find answers that works within the system.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-33353934074393649252012-04-02T08:28:54.858-07:002012-04-02T08:28:54.858-07:00BTW. If I made the car and the bike, it's no m...BTW. If I made the car and the bike, it's no more difficult for me to fix then it was to make it. So in terms of Occam's Razor, I am the simplest answer. You just have to accept the assumption that I created the bike and the car. In your example, who made the bike and car is not defined, but rather it is assumed it was not the owner. Remember, I'm answering the question "who created the car?" In this case, the simplest answer was me, not some complex description of me buying parts, putting them together, etc. And even if it got down to who fabricated the parts, I can say "some other intelligent person". It would not be "the molecules from the iron fillets combined with the force of heat...etc.etc." since that beg's the question of "what force did this"?<br /><br />In any case, "who made the intelligent designer" does not negate the answer of "how the universe was made", but rather it is itself a question, but not one I was answering.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-84175826348282600112012-04-02T08:12:50.560-07:002012-04-02T08:12:50.560-07:00Hi Vic,
First of all, I never said "God did ...Hi Vic,<br /><br />First of all, I never said "God did it". All I said was there must be an intelligent observer, which I believe is each of us observing ourselves. Granted, this is not easy to explain in terms that will be accept as "simple" since you've already asked "who made you?". But using the term "made" really only make sense for physical things. The assumption for "made" applies to things that are bound in time. I do not believe time exists outside of the physical reality so the concept of a beginning makes no sense. The question then is, "how can time not exist?" The real question is "what is time"? To me, time is a function of the physical laws. I've tried to explain my position on time as well.<br /><br />Secondly, you're making an assumption in regards to the universe. The assumption is that the universe is real. Do you believe your dream is real? Probably not real in the same sense as the physical universe, but it is a manifestation of you and in your dream, it is real. The question is what does "real" mean, then? I've stated in another post why people believe the physical world is real which has to do with the physical senses.<br /><br />I accept your position that "no one" created the designer. But what is the designer? If it's not something that can be created, then the question of "who designed the designer" is unanswerable. We know what physical matter is and that it is the combination of things and thus ask "how did it come to be". We don't know what consciousness is, where it is, etc., so we cannot understand anything about it. To say "no one" designed anything answers nothing, really. Rather than pushing it down to an infinite question, which is possible, by claiming "no one", you are saying than existence is finite because there is a beginning and an end. With in time, you're saying nothing else exists outside of what you perceive, and yet clearly that is not true (in terms of unseen forces). Science is aware of many unseen forces, and I'm sure you agree they are unaware of many others. But just because you cannot perceive something now does not mean it does not exist. Take for example a worm. From the perspective of a worm, do you think it knows what a human is? It can't see you or hear you, but when you enter it's reality, it reacts, but for the majority, they'll never be in contact with a human and thus to them you don't exist. Clearly, you know you exist. So a claim of non-existence by the fact that it is not detected now is what is false, just like saying "no one" because you don't see any intelligent designer. And yet, I claim you can see the force now, in each individual self, and Schrodinger's Paradox is an example of a manifestation of our force.<br /><br />The angle of "God did it that way" is a red herring only because you're pushing responsibility away from yourself. I've claimed that all personal reality stems from each individual, that you are the "God" of your own life and all together we are a portion of "God". "I think, therefore I am" is the perfect phrase to describe my point. YOU think, and therefore YOU are. It is consciousness (meaning your knowingness, not necessarily your waking consciousness aka physical senses) that creates reality including the perceptions, and from each individual's consciousness, the world we perceive becomes "real".<br /><br />You cannot explain anything until you understand consciousness, what you are. Many of the assumptions made are based on assuming what we see exists and the negation of that perceived reality is impossible. But I'm saying do not assume what you perceive is static and real because you're take for granted that your mind is creating the perception from your physical senses.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630412588545081942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3159346450125574362.post-81721761348473488672012-04-02T01:44:57.248-07:002012-04-02T01:44:57.248-07:00As always, there is a lot here. I'll comment ...As always, there is a lot here. I'll comment on one thing specifically -- I think your application of Occam's Razor is incorrect. Saying "God did it" might seem simpler, but actually it only kicks the can farther down the road. It's like saying, "My car is simpler than my bike. When my bike breaks down, I have to fiddle with the chain, mess with the spokes, see if the brakes are working, etc. But when my car breaks down, all I need to do is call my mechanic!"<br /><br />By trying to explain the complexity of the universe with something even more complex -- an intelligent designer who is capable of creating a universe, at will -- you are raising more questions than you are answering. Namely, who designed the designer?<br /><br />If you allow yourself to say "no one," and claim that the designer does not need a designer, then you can just as easily say that the universe does not need a designer. Intelligent design does not solve the infinite regress problem, it merely extends it one more step. Hypothesizing an intelligent designer has only made your job harder, without providing any real explanatory power.<br /><br />Consider it from another angle. All manner of questions can be answered with "God did it that way." "Why is the sky blue?" "Why do people hurt each other?" "What is my purpose in life?" Answering "God" to any of these provides nothing of value for these questions -- it's a total red herring.<br /><br />In the end, atheists don't think that our existence does not require an intelligent designer -- they just realize the impotence of it to actually explain anything.Victor Shihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03074915000996247481noreply@blogger.com