Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Kurieuo]

Kenny wrote:
My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Name one complex thing, and prove scientifically that it wasn't created by an intelligent being.

If you are going to make the argument that because I am unable to prove this, that it is therefore impossible throughout the entirety of the Universe; that is a very poor argument to make.

I actually thought that a very relevant question. Wondered why many more people don't ask of it skeptics who often say complex things don't need creating by an intelligent being. I think it's a good question Rick.

It gets one thinking about how exactly something might be "complex" i.e., what counts as complexity. That's a good thing to think about--unpacking the language of what is meant by terms used--even if one disagrees with the conclusion of any arguments based upon such.

I think it is a poor argument to make because there is so much about the Universe we just don’t know. Just because in our daily lives, everything complex seems to have been created by an intelligent being doesn’t mean that is the case for the entire Universe. That would be like reading a book in a Library, and assuming all the other books there are like the one you just read.

BTW a Coral Reef looks pretty complex to me; what do you think?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... fr=yfp-t-s

Yes, a coral reef with all its life is very complex, and has a beauty to match that is wonderfully designed. BUT, I think you're missing what I'm saying Kenny.

Athiest: Nothing is designed.
Theist: Everything is designed.

Each begin at different ends of the spectrum, so then no discussion can be realistically had if the purpose it so make a person see a conclusion opposite to their starting premise. However, why can't the details be discussed?

Both sides simply "parley" with each other over the argument, to discuss the terms and details surrounding such. What for example, is complexity? Is there a type of complexity that we could agree upon as being only attributable to an agent (e.g., a watch)? If we didn't witness any such agents, is there a way we could know? What signs do we look for? Why is it complex computer code requires agency, and yet complex biological code does not? Is it merely because agent/s are seen for one and not the other? Is there something more than could be drawn and/or said? These are fairly neutral questions.

[Morny]

Athiest: Nothing is designed.
Theist: Everything is designed.

Each begin at different ends of the spectrum, so then no discussion can be realistically had if the purpose it so make a person see a conclusion opposite to their starting premise.

Exactly!

I feel left out, so I'll add:
Agnostic: Don't know if the 1st nanosecond is designed.

However, why can't the details be discussed?

I've spent my life pondering that still unanswered question!

Simple rules (physics) govern everything from galaxies to gluons. I'll provisionally grant that God created those rules in the 1st nanosecond. Has anything after that 1st nanosecond required additional divine fiddling to produce complexity? Start with the first, basic, non-controversial stuff: formation of of the 1st galaxies? Formation of the periodic table? Formation of molecules? Stop me when an answer becomes "yes".

"I don't know", is an acceptable answer.

[Morny]

God is not complex. We've asked you to read this before, but I guess you really don't want to understand.

This Divine Simplicity argument is a variant of a 2500 year old philosophical idea:
- Everything natural requires a cause.
- So God (supernatural) is the required uncaused cause of the natural.

Equally compelling counterarguments arose a couple minutes after the idea first arose those 2500 years ago, with little progress since. You have a better chance of resolving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Morny]

Biochemist Michael Denton, longtime senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, says of the simple cell:
[...]

Nearly every biological scientist rejects Denton's critique of evolution. More importantly, like Michael Behe, Denton fails to address his arguments' basic flaws that scientists point out.

[Philip]

Morny: Nearly every biological scientist rejects Denton's critique of evolution.

That has zero relevance to his description of the massive intricacy and complexity of a "simple" cell! And, BTW, Denton describes himself as an agnostic - so, he's got no "God axe" to grind!

Again, why did the Hadron Collider, the most sophisticated and complex machine science has ever designed and built, require so much expertise, and yet it isn't nearly as complex as the design and operations of a biological cell? Something intelligent HAD to produce it. Nothing else makes sense. There is ZERO evidence of non-intelligent things designing and creating ANYTHING!

[Kenny]

Morny: Nearly every biological scientist rejects Denton's critique of evolution.

There is ZERO evidence of non-intelligent things designing and creating ANYTHING!

What about a Coral Reef?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... fr=yfp-t-s

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you?

Because cells exist.

any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

If such evidence did exist, do you think anybody would be able to recognize it? I doubt it.

So, because cells exist that means they have ALWAYS existed ?

No it doesn't mean that. I'm saying, if something exists, I don't know it's origin, it makes more sense to me that it always existed than it was created by magic; because I don't believe in magic.

Are you suggesting that either something has always existed or else it was created by magic ??

[Kenny]

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you?

Because cells exist.

any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

If such evidence did exist, do you think anybody would be able to recognize it? I doubt it.

So, because cells exist that means they have ALWAYS existed ?

No it doesn't mean that. I'm saying, if something exists, I don't know it's origin, it makes more sense to me that it always existed than it was created by magic; because I don't believe in magic.

Are you suggesting that either something has always existed or else it was created by magic ??

I was kinda using "magic" as a figure of speech; for outside the laws of nature.

[Philip]

Philip: There is ZERO evidence of non-intelligent things designing and creating ANYTHING!

Ken: What about a Coral Reef?

Do you not understand that Coral are sophisticated, interconnected communities of tiny living animals made up of - you guessed it - cells!

Per a NY Times article:

"They (corals) get their bright reds and vivid purples from colorful algae called zooxanthellae that live in their cells, providing the oxygen that the corals need to grow — albeit slowly. Some species of coral grow as little as a tenth of an inch a year."

[Kenny]

Philip: There is ZERO evidence of non-intelligent things designing and creating ANYTHING!

Ken: What about a Coral Reef?

Do you not understand that Coral are sophisticated, interconnected communities of tiny living animals made up of - you guessed it - cells!

I noticed you mentioned "sophisticated", and" interconnected", but you didn't use the term "intelligent" when describing them.

Per a NY Times article:

"They (corals) get their bright reds and vivid purples from colorful algae called zooxanthellae that live in their cells, providing the oxygen that the corals need to grow — albeit slowly. Some species of coral grow as little as a tenth of an inch a year."

Humm.... sounds like we agree!

[Philip]

Ken: I noticed you mentioned "sophisticated", and" interconnected", but you didn't use the term "intelligent" when describing them.

Of course living organisms have a certain level of innate ability to replicate and interact, as it must be intelligently programmed into the organism. And that is entirely first dependent upon and evidence by the immensely complex cells - remember, those basic foundations of all living organisms that are more complex than any machine ever built by man! What, do you think non-intelligent things worked together or sought to build themselves? How? Why? There is absolutely no mechanism for blind or non-intelligent things to create anything FAR more complex in design and function than anything man has ever produced. Referencing the functions of things that already have cells helps you none whatsoever!

[Kurieuo]

Athiest: Nothing is designed.
Theist: Everything is designed.

Each begin at different ends of the spectrum, so then no discussion can be realistically had if the purpose it so make a person see a conclusion opposite to their starting premise.

Exactly!

I feel left out, so I'll add:
Agnostic: Don't know if the 1st nanosecond is designed.

What type of Agnostic would you say you are:

Strong Agnostic: I can't know.
Weak Agnostic: I don't know.

If the former, then you're making an equal positive claim. It therefore does no good if, for example, you were to pride yourself on some sort of superior intellectual high-ground -- like you're in middle of the polar opposite sides.

If the latter, weak agnostic, then there are just so many arguments for and against. I can't help but to believe if anyone looks into them, they'll be minimally tilted to one side more than the other. And, I don't think indecision is something to be praised, but that it is good to come to a decision by investigating gaps in their knowledge and making a judgement on what is most likely the case. There is next the nothing we can prove with 100% certainty, and yet, we don't live out a life trapped in nihilism. We must necessarily believe things, even wrong things, or we just can't get ahead in practical ways.

Just throwing out some thoughts.

However, why can't the details be discussed?

I've spent my life pondering that still unanswered question!

Simple rules (physics) govern everything from galaxies to gluons. I'll provisionally grant that God created those rules in the 1st nanosecond. Has anything after that 1st nanosecond required additional divine fiddling to produce complexity? Start with the first, basic, non-controversial stuff: formation of of the 1st galaxies? Formation of the periodic table? Formation of molecules? Stop me when an answer becomes "yes".

"I don't know", is an acceptable answer.

I'd question whether this "I don't know" is a more adamant claim of "I cannot know", which means the person sees no point investigating and weighing up what is more likely in order to come to a more knowledgable position.

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer for one who is starting out and hasn't investigated the arguments for/against. However, I feel like to remain in such a position and have nothing more to say about the matter re: one's leanings, that such is either bucking some sort of rational responsibility to investigate the arguments, or that there is a willful denial of some sort going on.

[Kenny]

opps!

[Kenny]

Ken: I noticed you mentioned "sophisticated", and" interconnected", but you didn't use the term "intelligent" when describing them.

Of course living organisms have a certain level of innate ability to replicate and interact, as it must be intelligently programmed into the organism. And that is entirely first dependent upon and evidence by the immensely complex cells - remember, those basic foundations of all living organisms that are more complex than any machine ever built by man! What, do you think non-intelligent things worked together or sought to build themselves? How? Why? There is absolutely no mechanism for blind or non-intelligent things to create anything FAR more complex in design and function than anything man has ever produced. Referencing the functions of things that already have cells helps you none whatsoever!

I disagree. The life within the Coral Reef are not considered intelligent life
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... ent%20life

And why do you keep going back to the idea that everything was created? I never agreed those things were created!

[Philip]

You deny it, Ken, because you desire to remain in unbelief - even if that means dismissing the obvious impossibility of non-intelligent things producing things requiring an astonishing level of design in engineering and functionality. If you found any machine - even one of the complexity comparable to the relatively simple level of a nice Swiss watch - you would conclude it was built by an intelligence. Yet you know of cellular design and complexity far beyond what it took for even a huge team of scientists 10 years to build, and you deny it required intelligence.

No offense meant, but wow, Ken - you are holding one to your denial with every ounce of your determination and strength, it's just so obvious. So much so that I don't believe you truly believe such complexity of design doesn't require an intelligent builder - no matter how much you proclaim it!