Intelligent Design in 10 years?

[Felgar]

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Well, Felgar. Even though I totally reject this "truth", I understand what you mean. Since it serves you and since you chose not to "impose" it on me, there is no need to go into detail as to why I reject it. I will say it has a great deal of subjectivity but I can still see why you would regard it as absolute unchanging truth.

You reject it and I accept. Each of us maintains our own personal belief. But personal belief really isn't truth, is it?

As long as you can agree that only one of us is correct - that only one our opinions actually corresponds with the real, objective truth - then I'm happy leaving it at that. I'll have to live with the fact that you believe I am wrong.

[jerickson314]

Jerickson, my site is ggod.info, not org, but thanks for visiting. I am not surprised that you disagree with everything I said. You wouldn't be Jerickson otherwise, but still I am glad you took time to visit the site. We're just exchanging ideas. Some of us are right. Some of us are wrong. Most of us are expressing opinions.

Can you provide some examples of opinions? Most of the debate has seemed factual to me.

If there was one distinct, unchanging entity called God, then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

I really don't see what "unchanging" has to do with anything, even though God is unchanging. Regarding the rest:

< sarcasm >If there was one distinct entity called "abortion", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

If there was one distinct entity called "evolution", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

If there was one distinct entity called "George W. Bush", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

If there was one distinct entity called "politics", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

If there was one distinct entity called "homosexuality", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.

If there was one distinct entity called "religion", then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT.< / sarcasm>

I can already guess your reply. No one debates whether those things exist (except probably in the case of evolution). However, each entity has its own controversy. In the case of God, existence is a major controversy.

I won't be able to come up with convincing counterexamples due to the way the problem is defined. If it is controversial whether something exists, it will probably not be self evident to you that it exists. Plus you, like other materialists, believe in so few things already. "Evolution" is probably the best example I have.

The language used to describe God comes from the mouths of the human s who speak about God. So far, it appears to me that the origin of God lies in the thought of humanity.

< sarcasm >The language used to describe George W. Bush comes from the mouths of the humans who speak about George W. Bush. So far, it appears to me that the origin of George W. Bush lies in the thought of humanity.< /sarcasm>

Thought can only bring about the origin of ideas. It is utterly incapable of bringing about the origin of anything else. Thus thought could create the concept of God, but it simply cannot create God Himself. But we believe that God exists completely independent of human thought.

I don't know what you mean by "learn to use google" as if I don't already know. Perhaps you could elucidate that remark or educate me as to what it is I don't know.

I was being something called "sarcastic". The fact is, the arguments presented on that page have been refuted over and over again. A simple Google search should be enough to tell you that.

In other words, a literal translation of my remark would be "Do a little reasearch before posting random material!"

I apologize if I came across as unkind. I get so tired of seeing the same junk repeated over and over again.

[jerickson314]

What is truth, then? If truth exists, could someone give me a cup of truth, please.

Forge, if you would focus for a moment, I will link truth to materialism for you. First of all, my website is ggod .info. Thank you for visiting. Energy is not visible but it is detectable. I include detectability in my definition of materialism. When you think, you transmit energy along your brain cells. Your ideas and thoughts are stored in your brain cells as memory. The procedure is bio-electrical (my term), and I think the resulting trace representing your thought has to do with the pattern of potassium and sodium ions, something like that. I am not a neurosurgeon, but I do read a lot. I suggest you look into a more reliable source regarding thoughts and the way the brain stores ideas. Ultimately it is physical. You can excise brain tissue and gid rid of memory, so there is a material basis for thoughts.

Truth has to be an idea, an idea being a collection of thoughts. Truth is relative, and subjective. Sometimes, truth is quite objective as well, but still, you have to think to create truth or to know truth, and thinking involves the organization of thought.

The brain uses energy to think and energy to store ideas, thoutghts, etc. as memory. Truth, then has a physical component. I can't pour it into a cup fror you, but I can try to explain what I mean by materialism as it applies to things we normally can't see. A lie can be detected on a lie detector by fluctuations in heartbeat, body temperature, nerve activity, etc. It's energy that makes up the universe, and energy is a material thing although it may not have the normal characteristic of things seen, felt, heard, or poured into a cup.

Ahh, that explains everything. In each and every post by hamilrob up to this point, "truth" should be replaced with "perception". The post I just quoted makes this quite clear.

"Truth" is what actually is. It is possible for something to be true even if no human has ever believed it.

"Perception" is what you actually described, the imperfect reflection of truth in our limited human minds.

Whether perception is naturalistic is oustide the scope of this thread. I will say that I mostly agree with LittleShepherd's comments, however.

[jerickson314]

Looks like I won't be able to use logic in my arguments any more. You don't seem to accept it. Belief has no effect on truth, barring certain specific cases like the placebo effect. The existence of an entity is never one of these cases.

If something is undetectable, you have to use belief to make it real for yourself.

Thanks for the further confirmation of what you just quoted!

Define what you mean by "real for yourself". It can't have anything to do with the concept of "truth", though it can with "perception". But it seems that you are preaching relative truth, which is contrary to the very foundations of both logic and scientific inquiry.

Even if you have seen apparitions or heard voices, it is what you believe about those experiences create the reality behind them That's what I meant by God exisitng because people believe so.

No, it is what creates the perception. The perception may or may not correspond with the reality.

Since you can't face this entity, you have to use belief to determine the attributes of this entity as well as the thought of it or the plan that it has, etc. etc.

You haven't talked to me in person. Am I a Christian? How do you know, since you haven't seen me? Pure belief?

No. Special revelation. I have told you about myself. Likewise, God has given us the Bible in which he tells us about Himself.

People are always talking about what they believe Goid {sic} is doing at this moment or that. People are always speculating about why God is doing this or that or what God intended here or there.

Yeah, they are right some of the time and wrong some of the time. So what?

I had a friend that said Hurricane Andrew was God's punishment for the cocaine trade in Florida. Jerry Falwell said the 9/11 attack was, in part, God's punishment for the homosexuality in America. (He since retracted that). I don't need many more examples because I think you know what I am getting at. This entity may indeed exist, but things spoken regarding the actions of this entity come from the beliefs people have and maybe too, from the spoken words that some people BELIEVE they hear and identify the source as God, using again, their belief to justify that conclusion.

Some people are wrong, and some things said about God have come from false beliefs. So what?

God is certainly not unique in this regard. People make all sorts of conclusions about all sorts of things based on beliefs. Are you saying you have never made conclusions based on your BELIEF in materialism?

I have never claimed that everything every Christian has ever believed about God was right. This is quite a straw man for you to burn.

It is this constant utilization of belief that ultimately creates and defines the "reality" called God.

No, the belief has created and defined the perception of God. The question is, how much of this perception aligns with the actual reality?

It is belief that defines the bible as inerrant and infallible despite its many contradictions and inconsistencies.

What contradictions and inconsistencies? I have yet to see a single one that lacks a simple explanation.

[jerickson314]

Ahhh, finally. Here's where everything you've said falls apart. Since you don't belief that there are absolute truths, nothing you say should be taken as truth for anyone else.

Well obviously, Felgar. And the same applies to YOUR truths. In that sense, everything doesn't fall apart, but comes together. My truths are relative as well as anybody else's. In sharing my truths, there is the chance than somebody might identify with them as well as oppose them.

Is what you said the truth?

Boy, was I right about you not accepting logic.

Could you give me an example of absolute truth? OK, let's rule out "a priori" truths, like "It's raining outside", or 2 + 2 = 4, or something obvious like that. I think we are discussing a truth that lends itself more to subjectivity.. ("a posteriori" truths). It may be a contradiction to ask you to give me an example of an absolute, but "a posteriori" truth, but maybe you can sense what I am asking?

You have asked a "loaded question". If it lends itself to subjectivity, it simply isn't "truth".

I chose materialism because it is as close I can get to truths which are empirical and present the least amount of subjectivity.

Is that assertion free of subjectivity? (I say "yes", but for you to say this would contradict a lot of what you have said.)

Supernatural truths are real hard to verify and lead one into traps that can be set by people with ulterior motives.

The ease with which a truth can be verified has no effect on its actual correspondence with reality. I see a lot of bias in your "traps" assertion.

Supernatural truths are best discussed in abstract, and our day-to-day existence is usually a matter of interacting with truths that are more concrete. Truths like what time it is, what side of the road do I drive on, how much does it cost, etc. Truths like this may not be very exciting, but at least they are readily verified and don't cause a lot of endless arguing.

This whole paragraph is abstract. It is therefore "self defeating" like quite a few of your assertions.

The abstract is fine for church, or chit-chat, or whatever, but it often remains a matter of opinion as to what defines this kind of truth. What is Love? Does your wife love you? How do you know? Is God real? Who is God? What is God saying? It's hard to escape conjecture and speculation when defining such truth. It gets into the abstract, and in many cases, you can use intuition, which oftentimes is quite valid. However it is difficult to accept someone else's intuition as verification of a truth which you don't see or understand to be true. Is the universe intelligently designed or not? How do you verify this?

Here we get into discussing "levels of abstraction". Read the book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by physicalist Douglas Hofstadter. Despite being written by a physicalist, it offers some good insight into levels of abstraction, not to mention that his discussion of genetics inadvertently supports ID!

Higher level does not mean "less objective" by any means.

Of course, the reality is that there ARE absolute truths. Unfortunately in your quest to be objective and search only for concrete reality, you have actually undermined your own capacity to accept the very reality that you are searching for.

You see? This is the very kind of vagueness that leads me to choose materialism. When you make a declaritive statement like "There are absolute truths", you have to prove it. There is nothing to accept that is not explained or verified. If anyone is undermining anything, it is YOU and you are short circuiting your right to investigate ALL truths that come your way, lest you get bamboozled or led into a dark alley.

All of your assertions are absolute. More self-defeating illogic.

Why does "There are absolute truths" have to be proven while "There are no absolute truths" does not? The very concept of "prove" requires absolute truth.

"There is nothing to accept that is not explained or verified." - try explaining or verifying this!

So in your best knowledge, please give me an example of a truth that is non-relative and doesn't "fall apart" at some point.

Now, with the fewer conditions, I will give you your own "2 + 2 = 4". But alright, how about "e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0"?

[Forge]

Forge, if you would focus for a moment, I will link truth to materialism for you. First of all, my website is ggod .info. Thank you for visiting. Energy is not visible but it is detectable. I include detectability in my definition of materialism. When you think, you transmit energy along your brain cells. Your ideas and thoughts are stored in your brain cells as memory. The procedure is bio-electrical (my term), and I think the resulting trace representing your thought has to do with the pattern of potassium and sodium ions, something like that. I am not a neurosurgeon, but I do read a lot. I suggest you look into a more reliable source regarding thoughts and the way the brain stores ideas. Ultimately it is physical. You can excise brain tissue and gid rid of memory, so there is a material basis for thoughts.

Er... I don't know.

If truth, as you define it, is nothing more than different electrical charges or chemical balances, why believe it? The brain matter of a stark raving madman is not bigger of grayer of worse-smelling than a sane man's, so why pick the sane man over the insane man?

As for the brain memory-brain analogy, it proves nothing. The analogy only shows that the brain and the memory have some type of relationship; you have not told me what that relationship is.

Truth has to be an idea, an idea being a collection of thoughts. Truth is relative, and subjective. Sometimes, truth is quite objective as well, but still, you have to think to create truth or to know truth, and thinking involves the organization of thought.

So be it.

So, if truth is relative and subjective, then so is the "truth" that truth is relative and subjective. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The brain uses energy to think and energy to store ideas, thoutghts, etc. as memory. Truth, then has a physical component. I can't pour it into a cup fror you, but I can try to explain what I mean by materialism as it applies to things we normally can't see. A lie can be detected on a lie detector by fluctuations in heartbeat, body temperature, nerve activity, etc. It's energy that makes up the universe, and energy is a material thing although it may not have the normal characteristic of things seen, felt, heard, or poured into a cup.

Yet, it has also been proven that stress causes false readings.

[Alien]

Alien, since you seem to know so darn much about, well, everything that you could consider yourself as God, tell me then, how did the universe form from nothing into something? How does the stuff I buy come about? Pop out of thin air? Heck no! That is fairy tale, much like your argument that intelligent design is so flawed it's funny. I think people trying to use science to explain intelligent design is off by some, I do agree, but to say intelligent design is so flawed that it shouldn't even be considered is a lie. God NEVER said he would PROVE Himself through anything. I believe He proves himself supernaturally through the natural so he wont be fully discovered, that way, people like you, can be condemed to hell and he can have judgement. But of course you don't believe in hell. Well, I'm sorry, just because God hasn't personally rang your doorbell to know that he exists, I know he does. Not through being a Christian right off the bat, but having to test God to see if he exists, and yup, he does.

It is not really my intention to consider myself as God. I only wanted to say that ID is not a scientific theory. It is definitely a theory, because it gives an explanation about something, but it is not a scientific theory.

Scientific theories can be tested and/or falsified. This is why they are scientific. ID cannot be tested and cannot be falsified. It is a theory that remains non-scientific. I am not saying it is a lie. It is a theory that is not more and not less valid as anyone else non-scientific, like for example Astrology.

Therefore, being a theory, it can be accepted or rejected by us. If you accept it, you perform an act of faith. Actually, you always perform an act of faith in accepting a theory that is not scientific.
If you reject it, you are agnostic (I am). I cannot accept any theory that is not scientific, because explanations given are not valuable explanations.

My first step in my thoughts is always to categorise a theory and evaluate how strong are the scientific basis upon which it is built.

Regarding the question about universe, well, I have no idea whether it came from nothing into something. Another theory says that the universe always existed, therefore there was no starting point. There are several theories about how the universe started to exist. Some of them are more scientific than others. It depends on which basis they can be justified. I try to categorise and assess each theory at a time.

Why does "There are absolute truths" have to be proven while "There are no absolute truths" does not? The very concept of "prove" requires absolute truth.

Mmmmhhh, this is not a symmetrical argument.

A supposedly absolute truth can never be 100% proven. This, again, does not mean that there are no absolute truths, but only that you can never prove that there are.

Of course, you can also never prove that there are no absolute truths, but you can consider the possibility that the truth is falsified. Again, it may take one minute or millions of years to find a falsification of the absolute truth, or it can never be falsified. You cannot say.

I prefer to talk about "statements" (or theories) and not "truths".

What I want to say is: take as an example the famous statement "all crows are black".

This can be claimed to be an absolute truth. You can never say this is an absolute truth, because everytime you check a crow, and realise it is actually black, you just increase your confidence level towards the absolute, but you are not reaching the absolute truth. After having checked one billion crows, all black, you are still not sure that somewhere a red crow does actually exist.

You cannot demonstrate the statement is absolutely true. Never.

On the other side, if you find a red crow, you have demonstrated that the statement is false. If you find it.

In conclusion, you can either

1. increase the confidence level about the truth (asymptotically to 100%)
2. hope to demonstrate that it is false (but you don't know it in advance)

But you can never

3. demonstrate it is an absolute truth
4. demonstrate it is not an absolute truth

[jerickson314]

Alien:

You are confusing "truth" with "knowledge". I have seen many people do the same thing. There are truths that no human will ever have a clue about.

[Alien]

You are confusing "truth" with "knowledge".

Where, in my example about crows?

The statement "all crows are black" might be "true", ie a truth. But, still, we can only increase our knowledge in two ways:

1. increase our confidence level about this truth
2. hope to demonstrate it is false, ie not a truth

There are truths that no human will ever have a clue about.

This statement has no value, because it cannot be falsified. But I will not ask you to demonstrate this. It is not possible to demonstrate it.

Again, we have

a. "all crows are black" or "there are absolute truths"
b. "not all crows are black" or "there are no absolute truths"

I only ask you to acknowledge that the opposite and negative statements like "b" do not have to be demonstrated if first you don't demonstrate the positive ones "a".
Negative statements like "b" are always a consequence of the positive ones like "a".
Ideally, "a" should be demonstrated first. But, as said, it is not possible.

Therefore, my answer to your question

Why does "There are absolute truths" have to be proven while "There are no absolute truths" does not? The very concept of "prove" requires absolute truth.

is that statement "a" has to proven BEFORE statement "b" has to be proven; and, because statement "a" cannot be proven, then statement "b" does not need to be proven.

It's not symmetric.

[jerickson314]

The statement "all crows are black" might be "true", ie a truth. But, still, we can only increase our knowledge in two ways:

1. increase our confidence level about this truth
2. hope to demonstrate it is false, ie not a truth

Right.

This statement has no value, because it cannot be falsified. But I will not ask you to demonstrate this. It is not possible to demonstrate it.

You could also say that the statement "the universe exists" or "statements which cannot be falsified have no value" has no value, because it cannot be falsified. Falsifiability is overrated. It is when something can neither be verified nor falsified that it is really questionable.

What color is the farthest planet in the universe from Earth? See, a truth no one has a clue about. I could easily think of others. It simply isn't true that "It is not possible to demonstrate it."

Again, we have

a. "all crows are black" or "there are absolute truths"
b. "not all crows are black" or "there are no absolute truths"

I only ask you to acknowledge that the opposite and negative statements like "b" do not have to be demonstrated if first you don't demonstrate the positive ones "a"

Simply not the case. If a might be true, then b might be true. Certainly not must.

And your two examples (crows and absolutes) are not very parallel. For one, to demonstrate "a" for absolutes it is simply necessary to show that there exists at least one absolute truth. To demonstrate "b" for crows it is simply necessary to show that there exists at least one crow which is not black.

Examples of absolutes?

"Either absolute truth exists or it doesn't."
"All birds which are black are black."
"One plus one equals two."
"The universe exists."
"Human language exists."

And to make an argument is to imply absolute truth. Nearly all of your statements have to be absolute to be meaningful.

Negative statements like "b" are always a consequence of the positive ones like "a".

This is unclear. What are you saying?

Ideally, "a" should be demonstrated first. But, as said, it is not possible.

I just did demonstrate it, on both accounts.

Therefore, my answer to your question

Why does "There are absolute truths" have to be proven while "There are no absolute truths" does not? The very concept of "prove" requires absolute truth.

is that statement "a" has to proven BEFORE statement "b" has to be proven; and, because statement "a" cannot be proven, then statement "b" does not need to be proven.

It's not symmetric.

[/quote]

I guess it doesn't matter, since I proved that "there are absolute truths" is a true statement. I guess you could say that my argument begs the question, since it assumes its own truth. However, to assert that there is no absolute truth goes beyond fallacy to simple insanity.

[Alien]

Jerickson314,

I think we are a little bit diverging both each other and from the topic of the thread. I am also exaggerating by entering into some details that are not really relevant. I don't completely disagree with you in some of what you said, but I think we have to better distinguish here because otherwise we are talking about different things.

I would like to perform a sort of "reset" now.

Rather than truths, in this topic I am talking about theories, because ID is a theory. And I would not mix theory with truth.

As an example, I agree with you when you say that "1 + 1 = 2" is a truth. But it is not a theory. It is a starting axyom of a tool called mathematics.
I also agree that "All birds which are black are black" is a truth. But it is not a theory. It is a tautology.

Never mind: now the reset.

When I say that "all crows are black" I am not stating a fact and not stating a truth. I am stating a theory that, being a theory, should be demonstrated. It is a scientific theory because it can be falsified. A red crow would falsify the theory. A black crow would confirm the theory. We cannot state the theory is absolutely true. Never.

When you say that "the universe has been created by ID" you are not stating a fact and not stating a truth. You are stating a theory that, being a theory, should be demonstrated. But, differently from the theory "all crows are black", this one is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. Nothing would falsify this sort of theories. Nothing can also confirm this theory. We cannot state the theory is absolutely true. Never.

My conclusion is that no theory, scientific or not, can ever be proven 100% as true, and therefore absolute truth (for theories) does not exist.

Of course we have absolute truths, but these are not theories.

This is all what I meant in my post with "ID is not a scientific theory" as a comment to Darwin_Rocks.

[Believer]

Jerickson314,

I think we are a little bit diverging both each other and from the topic of the thread. I am also exaggerating by entering into some details that are not really relevant. I don't completely disagree with you in some of what you said, but I think we have to better distinguish here because otherwise we are talking about different things.

I would like to perform a sort of "reset" now.

Rather than truths, in this topic I am talking about theories, because ID is a theory. And I would not mix theory with truth.

As an example, I agree with you when you say that "1 + 1 = 2" is a truth. But it is not a theory. It is a starting axyom of a tool called mathematics.
I also agree that "All birds which are black are black" is a truth. But it is not a theory. It is a tautology.

Never mind: now the reset.

When I say that "all crows are black" I am not stating a fact and not stating a truth. I am stating a theory that, being a theory, should be demonstrated. It is a scientific theory because it can be falsified. A red crow would falsify the theory. A black crow would confirm the theory. We cannot state the theory is absolutely true. Never.

When you say that "the universe has been created by ID" you are not stating a fact and not stating a truth. You are stating a theory that, being a theory, should be demonstrated. But, differently from the theory "all crows are black", this one is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. Nothing would falsify this sort of theories. Nothing can also confirm this theory. We cannot state the theory is absolutely true. Never.

My conclusion is that no theory, scientific or not, can ever be proven 100% as true, and therefore absolute truth (for theories) does not exist.

Of course we have absolute truths, but these are not theories.

This is all what I meant in my post with "ID is not a scientific theory" as a comment to Darwin_Rocks.

I agree with what Alien says. ID is not really a scientific theory. What we have available on Earth can be put through the wringer and be tested and theoried all it wants to be but in the end, more theories will come out. We have the material of the Earth and universe to explore. You can only classify the subject as a scientific matter, but not something like ID, because what we have on Earth is all we have. As a Christian, I am saying that God placed everything here to discover, because if there wasn't anything to discover, would we really have science? No. God, through the Bible, only mentions SOME things, He left the rest up to us to explore His creation. Now this is going off topic, but as a person who has a major grudge against atheists, not so much with agnostics because they are open to anything, God trough my EXTREMELY vivid dreams SHOWED me that the atheists don't understand, what they think they know, they don't, God told me to LOVE them no matter what, because they are actually clueless, we are only limited to what God gives us. God can neither be proven or disproven, that is fact, unless He wants himself proven. Recently there have been many VIVID dreams I have been having that is scriptural and symbolic. What I mean by this is, I am not much of a Bible reader, so not reading much of it, I don't know the scripture. In my dreams, scripture flashes through my mind, again, I don't read the Bible much and I forget to easily. But when I wake up and flip through my Bible to see if what went through my mind was real or not, my dreams confirm the Bible. I have been shocked by this revelation. One that recently came was Matthew chapter 24, this talks about Jesus second coming. Now since I converted from agnosticism/atheism to a Christian, I have had this constant feeling that the end is approaching soon, like it has been said, many people thought the end was coming throughout history, well I on the other hand and select others have had these feelings as well, and the fact that Matthew chapter 24 flashed through my mind talking about Jesus' second coming, only confirms more that something dramatic is going to take place. I was not told, but I do know it may be happening within this century.

But back to theories, this debate amongst the religious and non-religious is absurd, a conclusion will never be met, it has been going on since the ancient times. ID is not scientific, only observable through what we have on Earth.

[jerickson314]

My conclusion is that no theory, scientific or not, can ever be proven 100% as true, and therefore absolute truth (for theories) does not exist.

It cannot be proven 100% true, right. However, what this means is that the absolute truth is unknowable. Not that it doesn't exist.

[Alien]

But back to theories, this debate amongst the religious and non-religious is absurd, a conclusion will never be met, it has been going on since the ancient times.

Honestly, I don't think it's absurd.
As a minimum, it helps me in training my mind.
And, discussions are an essential part of interaction between humans. I am sure you agree that violence is the negation of dialogue.

My conclusion is that no theory, scientific or not, can ever be proven 100% as true, and therefore absolute truth (for theories) does not exist.

It cannot be proven 100% true, right. However, what this means is that the absolute truth is unknowable. Not that it doesn't exist.

Here I was referring to the absolute truth as a 100% confirmation of a theory. Not to the Absolute Truth.

Can we say that ID is a theory?
That it is a non scientific theory?
And therefore its "truth" cannot be demonstrated (unknowable, as you say)?
I am not demonstrating that it does not exist. This is not in contradiction with the questions even if you answer yes.
All these answers would be fitting together.