Thread: The Expanding Universe and Intelligent Design

Pat on the back to the first poster who can make a quip about how its just a case of the thread "evolving"...

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Not at all, I've shown a number of times where beings less intelligent than we are have made intricate designs. If it helps, instead of "non-intelligent designer", use "not as intelligent as humans designer".

If we can't know this designer, than assigning intelligence, non-intelligence, equal intelligence is all just guessing. You are making an assumption. One needn't have the intelligence of man, nor higher intelligence, to be able to design.

Well even scientists make assumptions because they are forced to. For example, radiometric dating is founded on the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.

So I'll grant that the intelligence of the putative designer is an assumption---but I would argue that it is a fair assumption and even a well-founded one because we may not know much about what caused [specifically] the universe but we can surely recognize when something has been designed.

But here is where you miss the mark. In terms of ID, design---and not intelligence---is the conclusion. And in arguing that the two are not neccessarily synonynous, you are tacitly conceding that a design inference is not logically unsound at the level of cosmology.

A Dawkins or any of the 'new atheists' would never give up that kind of ground in a debate. Not that I am comparing them to you. Just thought it bore pointing out.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm not arguing about the alternate to design at this point. This particular discussion assumes that there is a designer. I'm asking for proof that the designer is intelligent, or at the very least, more than or equal to the intelligence of us. While doing so, I'm proposing an alternate view of this designer: that what we perceive, from our human-centric view, that the designer is put forethought into his design, it could be that the designer is designing as a byproduct, or through instinct, or through necessity. These things can all be done without the need for higher intelligence.

While all of the above is true, I would argue that Occam's Razor would excise those mindless entities which can create. And it would do so on the grounds that the most parimonious explanation entails those kinds of designers we are already familiar with. Whereas you are basically positing the existence of an additional entity or entities that no one is familiar with.

But just to reiterate [mostly for the benefit of some others because I think you're up to speed on it] these types of questions [as interesting as they may be] inhabit The Dead Zone with respect to ID. That is, they come downstream of a given design inference.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Intelligence is a significantly tiny portion of the Universe.

Are you sure of this?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm not bringing in what I think here, I'm just trying to understand what you think. You appear to think that we have a designer and that this designer is intelligent...because it's a designer. Assuming that the conclusion is correct (designers are always intelligent) is not evidence that the conclusion is true. This is akin to me saying "cheetahs are the fastest animals, because the fastest animals are cheetahs".

As I pointed out, my conclusion is design [so I'm not guilty of begging the question] and Occam's indicates that an intelligent one is the most parsimonious explanation.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Well even scientists make assumptions because they are forced to. For example, radiometric dating is founded on the assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.

...and we've tried to alter the rate of decay, unsuccessfully. That brings it beyond an assumption and more into the realm of something supported by testable evidence.

So I'll grant that the intelligence of the putative designer is an assumption---but I would argue that it is a fair assumption and even a well-founded one because we may not know much about what caused [specifically] the universe but we can surely recognize when something has been designed.

But we have no evidence of life or intelligence existing beyond our planet, or a life/intelligence that is unbound to the physical world. Or a life/intelligence that does not require any sort of mass to exist. You are assuming a designer (with no testable evidence) and then further assuming an intelligence. An assumption based off of an assumption is not something I would call 'fair'.

But here is where you miss the mark. In terms of ID, design---and not intelligence---is the conclusion. And in arguing that the two are not neccessarily synonynous, you are tacitly conceding that a design inference is not logically unsound at the level of cosmology.

Let me be clear, as I'm not trying to be sneaky here or anything, I do not believe there is a designer to begin with.

I am merely trying to understand where you're coming from with your argument. To do this, for the sake of this discussion, we're assuming a designer exists. I don't mean to give the impression that I actually believe one does exist.

A Dawkins or any of the 'new atheists' would never give up that kind of ground in a debate. Not that I am comparing them to you. Just thought it bore pointing out.

I'm certainly open to the idea, no doubt. While I don't believe in a designer, I'm perfectly willing to check out any evidence of there being one. I'm not an atheist by any means, I'd find saying "there's no possibility of a God" to be just as faulty as saying "there is 100% a God". I believe there is no designer, but I recognize beliefs can be wrong.

While all of the above is true, I would argue that Ocamm's Razor would excise those mindless entities which can create. And it would do so on the grounds that the most parimonious explanation entails those kinds of designers we are already familiar with. Whereas you are basically positing the existence of an additional entity or entities that no one is familiar with.

You can't really apply Occam's Razor to a complete unknown, though. It would be like me apply Occam's Razor to the dietary needs of Godzilla. When working with something that cannot be known, we have no way of knowing what the "simplest" explanation may be.

In addition, as I've stated, we have no examples of an intelligence designing and creating another intelligence. If there was, in fact, a designer, it would be the only one known in existence. Therefor, we have nothing to compare it to. We have no past designers of life in which we can reference to gauge whether designers of life are more or less intelligent than the life it creates, or which one is more of a plausibility.

But just to reiterate [mostly for the benefit of some others because I think you're up to speed on it] these types of questions [as interesting as they may be] inhabit The Dead Zone with respect to ID. That is, they come downstream of a given design inference.

Right. Most of these discussions between believers and non-believers of ID tend to focus on whether the designer exists in the first place. No one budges, and it always ends up being the same conversation over and over, ending with frustration on both sides. Although I do not believe in a designer, I am enjoying taking the conversation to the 'next level'.

Are you sure of this?

Even if every last planet was teeming with life (which they aren't), non-life would still make up the vast bulk of the universe. We are a precious commodity.

As I pointed out, my conclusion is design [so I'm not guilty of begging the question] and Occam's indicates that an intelligent one is the most parsimonious explanation.

And my conclusion is that if this designer existed before it created mass, it is, by necessity, without mass. And if it lacks mass, it's difficult to give it a quality (intelligence, emotions, sensory input) that requires mass (a brain) to exist. To do so, is to anthropomorphize something that we cannot comprehend, due to being forever limited to a human centric outlook on our physical reality. We might as well also say that the designer is muscular because it designed so many heavy objects. I believe proponents of ID assume the intelligence because they feel most comfortable with the idea of a superior being with intentions and thoughts that are inline/comparable with those of humans (basically, the religious God they've grown up with), not because there's any real evidence that a designer must be more intelligent than the intelligence it designs.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

...and we've tried to alter the rate of decay, unsuccessfully. That brings it beyond an assumption and more into the realm of something supported by testable evidence.

I would say it's somewhat nudged away from an assumption based on that. You can't duplicate billions of years. An assumption it remains.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

But we have no evidence of life or intelligence existing beyond our planet, or a life/intelligence that is unbound to the physical world. Or a life/intelligence that does not require any sort of mass to exist. You are assuming a designer (with no testable evidence) and then further assuming an intelligence. An assumption based off of an assumption is not something I would call 'fair'.

Well, who is doing the assuming here? A design inference in cosmology doesn't require assuming-the-conclusion and it doesn't neccessitate a dis-embodied intelligence downstream from the conclusion. But it definitely implies an intelligent agency that acted to create. Once you concede design [even for arguments sake in a debate] it is going to be difficult to exclude intelligence.

In fact, that is precisely why it is met with such hostiility in some quarters.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Let me be clear, as I'm not trying to be sneaky here or anything, I do not believe there is a designer to begin with.

I don't 'believe' in a designer in this context: rather, to me, design is the only plausible conclusion. This has absolutely nothing to do with faith or belief. It has to do with accepting the most rational conclusion given the available evidence.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I am merely trying to understand where you're coming from with your argument. To do this, for the sake of this discussion, we're assuming a designer exists. I don't mean to give the impression that I actually believe one does exist.

We're not actually far apart. The only difference is that you are treating the designer as an assumption whereas I conclude design. The stumbling point, I think, is that you insist on the possibility that something can be designed without a designer. Or, that the designer isn't neccessarily intelligent.

The former constitutes a logical absurdity in my mind. If something was designed without a designer, then we aren't really dealing with design; but rather, something that just appears to have been designed.

And the latter proposition is problematic from the standpoint that we have no experience with unintelligent designers. Even beavers and spiders have a modest degree of intelligence.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm certainly open to the idea, no doubt. While I don't believe in a designer, I'm perfectly willing to check out any evidence of there being one. I'm not an atheist by any means, I'd find saying "there's no possibility of a God" to be just as faulty as saying "there is 100% a God". I believe there is no designer, but I recognize beliefs can be wrong.

That's a different debate. At the level of this discussion we are dealing with what is the more plausible explanation. No one can make an absolute claim about the existence of God at this point---even after a design conclusion is obtained or negated.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

You can't really apply Occam's Razor to a complete unknown, though. It would be like me apply Occam's Razor to the dietary needs of Godzilla. When working with something that cannot be known, we have no way of knowing what the "simplest" explanation may be.

I disagree with that. The notion of a 'non-intelligent designer' introduces a superfluous entity into the equation; that is, it is not required.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

In addition, as I've stated, we have no examples of an intelligence designing and creating another intelligence. If there was, in fact, a designer, it would be the only one known in existence. Therefor, we have nothing to compare it to. We have no past designers of life in which we can reference to gauge whether designers of life are more or less intelligent than the life it creates, or which one is more of a plausibility.

I have to disagree again. We humans can create artificial intelligence.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Right. Most of these discussions between believers and non-believers of ID tend to focus on whether the designer exists in the first place. No one budges, and it always ends up being the same conversation over and over, ending with frustration on both sides. Although I do not believe in a designer, I am enjoying taking the conversation to the 'next level'.

Myself included.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Even if every last planet was teeming with life (which they aren't), non-life would still make up the vast bulk of the universe. We are a precious commodity.

Indeed. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to think [just given matter and natural law] to think we'd even be here to begin with.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

And my conclusion is that if this designer existed before it created mass, it is, by necessity, without mass. And if it lacks mass, it's difficult to give it a quality (intelligence, emotions, sensory input) that requires mass (a brain) to exist. To do so, is to anthropomorphize something that we cannot comprehend, due to being forever limited to a human centric outlook on our physical reality. We might as well also say that the designer is muscular because it designed so many heavy objects. I believe proponents of ID assume the intelligence because they feel most comfortable with the idea of a superior being with intentions and thoughts that are inline/comparable with those of humans (basically, the religious God they've grown up with), not because there's any real evidence that a designer must be more intelligent than the intelligence it designs.

The only evidence we have of intelligence creating other intelligence indicates that the higher intelligence belongs to the creator and not the created.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I'd say you are leaping to far more than misplaced conclusions in that case.
If anyone would imagine I'd try to take God away from anyone they are a petty and little person not worth discussing anything with. Not one word I've typed supports such an option. I reject Intelligent Design for the fraud and a lie that it is and the damage it does to rationality and the poor light it shines on men of faith.

Yawn ...

Sorry, JD, but this is simply more irrelevant lip service.

Do you have anything ON THE TOPIC to contribute?

Originally Posted by Renton

...yes, that's fine...but Hubble assumed from his measurements that the 'universe' was expanding, but what he actually observed was the 'visible contents' of the universe expanding it's volume...

...he had no evidence that any wall that had been containing the contents of the universe had been removed to permit this expansion of the contents into the newly created void...so why couldn't the 'void element' of the universe have been there prior to the defacto expansion of the contents of the universe?...

...the contents of the universe have also had 12.5 billion years or so to move through the void to the position that they are in today...so, if there is no direct correlation between the movement of the contents of the universe and the expansion of the universe, the expansion of the contents of the universe cannot be used as proof of the expansion of the universe, only that the observable contents are expanding...

...so, back to the OP that stated that the only explanation for Hubbles observations was that the universe was expanding, why couldn't it be argued that it was only the observable contents of the universe that were expanding?...and into a void/space that already existed?...

...just asking...

There is no "void space" that the Universe is expanding into. The Universe IS space and it's space itself that is expanding, there is no other space. (Well, not unless there's an Alternate Universe but that's that's not what we're talking about here. The Alternate is the same way as ours)

DON"T ask me to explain what is was "in" before it began expanding, or what it is expanding "into". The best explanation I've gotten so far is that it wasn't anywhere because there was no place to be and it's not expanding into anything because there's nothing to expand into...That makes as much sense to me as it does to you, which is none, unless you can explain it.

I sometimes wonder if the whole of quantum relativity isn't like the mythical "Ideal Gas" which a lot of physicists and Chemists thought actually existed and would simply cease to be at absolute zero. Then it was realised that every gas becomes a liquid before it reaches absolute zero, (which itself is impossible anyway due to, you guessed it, quantum mechanics.)

The problem with that thought is that quantum relativity makes predictions, and EVERY one of them has been proven right, more than any other theory in science, even including Newton's Laws at pre-Einstein velocities, and not just a little right but right with rigor, which means down to the last measurable decimal place, every single time.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

...and we've tried to alter the rate of decay, unsuccessfully. That brings it beyond an assumption and more into the realm of something supported by testable evidence.

I have an issue with our human arrogance when we say something like that, though, 'easy.

Does it strike you that we try to, in this case, alter something, fail, and so proclaim it as "proven" (or whatever) because we, in our infinite wisdom, made the determination that it must be falsifiable (or other equally arrogant proclamation).

That sounds like we're saying "we couldn't accomplish it, so it must not be accomplishable," doesn't it?

In other words (unnecessary, though it is), WE are unable to alter the rate of decay does not mean the rate of decay has never been altered.

Originally Posted by Good1

Yawn ...

Sorry, JD, but this is simply more irrelevant lip service.

Do you have anything ON THE TOPIC to contribute?

Chide me all you want, you've done nothing to show Intelligent Design is behind the expanding universe or responsible for the expanding universe.

Try spending some time proving your argument instead of pointing at phenomenon you don't understand and claiming that's evidence of manipulation by something you don't care to explain.

Originally Posted by Good1

In other words (unnecessary, though it is), WE are unable to alter the rate of decay does not mean the rate of decay has never been altered.

The rate of decay is tied to the nature of atoms. The nature of atoms hasn't changed for many billions of years (moments after things cooled down enough for atoms). Well outside the window of what is accurate for use of radiocarbon dating which is about 100,000 years back.

Now what could have varied in the past is the presence of Carbon-14 but there doesn't seem to have been enough variation within the time-frame carbon-14 radiological decay dating is useful.

This is of course a digression as such dating methods of fossilized life focus on a span of time much briefer than a blink of an eye in regards to the age of the expanding universe.

This thread appears to have run it's course. Closed for the time being.