Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Kenny]

You deny it, Ken, because you desire to remain in unbelief -

I am denying that Coral Reef contains intelligent life? Didn't I just provide a definition of intelligent life? Nothing within the Coral Reef is capable of learning or understanding things thus per that definition it is not intelligent life.

even if that means dismissing the obvious impossibility of non-intelligent things producing things requiring an astonishing level of design in engineering and functionality.

I provided you the example of the Coral Reef! A Coral Reef is an example of something produced via non intelligence that has design 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.

That’s because all machines are built by humans; and humans are intelligent beings.

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!

How do you know complexity of design requires an intelligent builder? If you knew of any evidence to support this claim, I’m sure you would have provided it by now; thus far you’ve provided nothing. According to science, everything within the Universe resulted from the singularity that expanded during what is known as the Big Bang; That’s it! They don’t claim an intelligence was involved; there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support this claim, yet you present it as not only truth, but an obvious truth; and claim I’m being less than truthful with myself because I refuse to take your word for it.
From the beginning I was clear about my ignorance concerning this subject, (even though I did provide links and outside sources to support my ideas) yet you insist on claiming knowledge about this that not even our greatest scientists have answers for. I feel it is better to admit when you don’t know than to present false information as truth.
I believe it was our friend Kurieuo who had a sign-off saying;

The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.

I couldn’t agree more.

[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.

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.

Your thoughts seem reasonable.

Some of your points don't represent my view, so I can add a couple clarifications below, which you can feel free to ignore.

BTW, I've found that most agnostics I've met have surprisingly similar views to mine.

My "I don't know" agnostic position isn't static, and allows me to "tilt to one side" (to use your phrasing). For example, I suspect that a natural explanation for the universe is not only possible but also more likely than me arriving at the pearly gates with the attendant saying that I'm not on the guest list.

I always concede that I could be wrong or missing something - I often am. If so, show me by responding to my evidence or counter argument. For example, claiming a study shows the efficacy of prayer, and then ignoring evidence of that study's flawed testing methodology, isn't productive.

And saying "I don't know" definitely does not mean I'm ignorant of the pro/con arguments, or that I've stopped investigating. I would hope that my postings show that. Instead, "I don't know" means that the evidence doesn't meet the some required percentile of confidence.

[Morny]

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.

That has zero relevance to his description of the massive intricacy and complexity of a "simple" cell!

Denton uses the complexity argument to deny evolution. You use Denton's argument to plead the supernatural. Denton's argument is scientifically flawed. You might want to find a new science sponsor.

[Philip]

Morny: Denton uses the complexity argument to deny evolution. You use Denton's argument to plead the supernatural. Denton's argument is scientifically flawed. You might want to find a new science sponsor.

In this thread, I'm not making any arguments whatsoever about evolution - which, btw, tells us nothing about the origins of the real questions concerning theism.

But Denton DOES accurately describe the workings and design within a biological cell, as they it is far more complex and sophisticated in design and function that anything ever built by mankind. And scientists do NOT deny THAT! What many - but certainly not all deny - is a designer.

BTW, merely throwing around the term "scientist" - when it comes to who agrees and who does not - is irrelevant if it's not their field or they aren't a biochemist like he is, at least when it comes to Denton's description of a cell's function and design. As it IS FAR more complex than anything built by man!

As for scientists as a whole, MANY of them ARE at least theists and many are Christians - meaning they believe in a Creator behind the Creation. In fact, many of the greatest and most important scientists across history have been and are Christians. Here's a nice list of them - with quite a few Nobel Prize winners as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology

[Morny]

In this thread, I'm not making any arguments whatsoever about evolution [...]

I didn't say you did. You're using Denton's same flawed complexity argument, but to plead the supernatural instead.

What many - but certainly not all [scientists] deny - is a designer.

Given no organic molecules, e.g., Earth 4+ billion years ago, almost all biological scientists believe the origin of biological complexity does not require a designer. Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Christian biologist, believes in a Designer for the universe, i.e, for the 1st instant to create the simple laws of physics themselves.

But after that, Dr. Miller does not believe the Designer violates the simple laws of physics to design organic molecules from inorganic, or to design lipid (cell) membranes to house and isolate the organic molecules, or to design RNA from enzymes and nucleic acids, or to design DNA from RNA.

And scientists do NOT deny [the cell's complexity]!

I didn't say scientists did. Scientists do point out patiently but fruitlessly to Denton and Behe how complexity can naturally arise from simpler organization.

If I were not an agnostic or atheist, my admiration for God would skyrocket while learning how a few simple laws of physics could generate us in 13.7 billion years from an initially isotropic, homogeneous, infinitesimal ball of pure energy.

[PaulSacramento]

Because cells exist.


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.

So what are you saying then?
You said here:

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...

I didn't add the "magic" part because, as you said, it was a figure of speech.

What does that even mean?
I mean, is your view this?
A) If we don't know where something came from ( it's origins) then it must have always existed?

Is that your view?

[Kenny]

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.

So what are you saying then?
You said here:

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...

I didn't add the "magic" part because, as you said, it was a figure of speech.

What does that even mean?
I mean, is your view this?
A) If we don't know where something came from ( it's origins) then it must have always existed?

Is that your view?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

[RickD]

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.

So what are you saying then?
You said here:

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...

I didn't add the "magic" part because, as you said, it was a figure of speech.

What does that even mean?
I mean, is your view this?
A) If we don't know where something came from ( it's origins) then it must have always existed?

Is that your view?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

1. Scientific "proof" doesn't exist
2. Metaphysical proof does exist
3. Therefore, X was created by Y

[Kenny]

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.

So what are you saying then?
You said here:

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...

I didn't add the "magic" part because, as you said, it was a figure of speech.

What does that even mean?
I mean, is your view this?
A) If we don't know where something came from ( it's origins) then it must have always existed?

Is that your view?

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

1. Scientific "proof" doesn't exist
2. Metaphysical proof does exist
3. Therefore, X was created by Y

Scientific laws are about as close to proof as they get; which is good enough for me. Philosophy (in my view) is not an effective means of establishing proof.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Scientific laws are about as close to proof as they get; which is good enough for me. Philosophy (in my view) is not an effective means of establishing proof.

Science isn't about proof. Proof belongs in mathematics, and other types of philosophy.

Just because you don't understand philosophy, that doesn't mean it's not effective. Same goes for science. Just because you think science "proves" things, that doesn't mean science isn't effective. It just means that you don't understand what it is supposed to do.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Scientific laws are about as close to proof as they get; which is good enough for me. Philosophy (in my view) is not an effective means of establishing proof.

Science isn't about proof. Proof belongs in mathematics, and other types of philosophy.

Mathematics; a branch of philosophy???
https://ninewells.vuletic.com/philosoph ... hilosophy/
As you see, of the 4 branches of philosophy, math is not one of them. But it doesn't matter; I think Paulsacramento understood the point I was making.

[PaulSacramento]

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

[Kenny]

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

[PaulSacramento]

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

[RickD]

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

My view is, scenario 1 sounds more logical and practical than scenario 2.

Sure, that is reasonable, except for this:
Do you have any evidence for anything "always existing" ?

What type of evidence are you looking for?

Do you have ANY type of evidence for anything always have existed, ie: something eternal.

Despite the complete lack of evidence, he still believes it's logical.