Tier 1 Level Philosophy: Can you identify Intelligent Design in a system where all physical relationships happen by chance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
40.png
Wozza:
Notwithstanding that you have a religious objection to a scientific process so I’m not likely to spend any time carrying on a fruitless conversation about it.
Click to expand...
By your use of of the word religious I understand that you do see how we have conflicting visions about the fundamental nature of reality. That being the case there could be no point of contact. You may not trust me but I must advise that I do know the world of science very well, having all the credentials to testify to that fact. Communication is still possible if one is able to stop arguing and listen, opening oneself up a new world.
Click to expand...
I don’t personally add any weight to your arguments about evolution in regard to whatever scientific credentials you may have because you reject the whole premise on theological grounds. And I think that you believe that those with opposing views are arguing whilst you are simply discussing.

It appears to me that the vast majority of those trying to explain evolution to you have already opened themselves up to your ‘new world’. And your imposition on them to ‘open themselves up’ to it strikes me as condescending. Or perhaps it’s Aloysium’s interpretation of the world to which you refer.

You seem not to realise that you are on a Catholic site talking primarily to Catholics and denying them the use of their God-given intelligence to decipher the God-given clues to a God-driven process that has been initiated and sustained by God Himself.
 
Yes, blind unguided chance means evolution kept spitting out more bad/unfit organisms than not. We should have billions of skeletons/fossils of those that were selected out, we don’t. Instead the “illusion of design” should be changed to “living things are designed.”
 
Last edited:
I was merely pondering whether the dice roll is random to God…
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
Let’s look at it this way: Imagine a universe where man has arisen by natural means. No intelligence involved (this is comparable to Alice In Wonderland). And compare that to a universe in which God has guided the process at every step.

How do you tell the difference?
Click to expand...
There is no difference as far as God is concerned because i think that an intelligence is necessary in both cases.
Click to expand...
It might be said by any Christian (you for example) that EVERYTHING is intelligently designed. In which case there is nothing whatsoever that one could use to indicate randomness or chance in anything at all. It would all lead to the designed intent.

Well, unless the randomness is part of the design. But if it is the sum total of the design then it is indistinguishable from randomness.
 
Wozza said:
Well, unless the randomness is part of the design. But if it is the sum total of the design then it is indistinguishable from randomness.
Click to expand...
The difference for me is how you define guidance? If you mean that an intelligence is interfering with a process in-order to favor an outcome, then i don’t think that’s the case. I think God allows things to act according to their nature. The question is can one identify something that can only be the result of intelligence in a universe where physical relationships and natures occur by chance. I think that if a nature exhibits intelligent information, or goal direction in it’s behavior, then this is evidence of an intelligently designed plan . It does not matter to me that such natures formed by chance, as i think that is irrelevant since i don’t think it is possible for genuinely intelligent information or goal direction to exist without an intelligent design. Just like i don’t think it’s possible for monkeys to produce by chance Alice In Wonderland without intelligent design because a relationship between symbols by themselves have no objective meaning or genuinely intelligent information unless they are endowed by an intelligence…

Thus identifying a designer, for me, is not about challenging the idea that some nature or thing arose by chance. For me, identifying intelligent design is pointing to any process that exhibits intelligent information or goal direction.
 
Last edited:
Not random in the sense that the outcome is unknown, but random in the sense that He allows the natural forces which govern the rest of the universe to govern the fall of the dice. Since He does not control any of the starting variables, that would mean that, for the purposes of this conversation, it remains random.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
Well, unless the randomness is part of the design. But if it is the sum total of the design then it is indistinguishable from randomness.
Click to expand...
The difference for me is how you define guidance? If you mean that an intelligence is interfering with a process in-order to favor an outcome, then i don’t think that’s the case. I think God allows things to act according to their nature. The question is can one identify something that can only be the result of intelligence in a universe where physical relationships and natures occur by chance. I think that if a nature exhibits intelligent information, or goal direction in it’s behavior, then this is evidence of an intelligently designed plan . It does not matter to me that such natures formed by chance, as i think that is irrelevant since i don’t think it is possible for genuinely intelligent information or goal direction to exist without an intelligent design. Just like i don’t think it’s possible for monkeys to produce by chance Alice In Wonderland without intelligent design because a relationship between symbols by themselves have no objective meaning or genuinely intelligent information unless they are endowed by an intelligence…

Thus identifying a designer, for me, is not about challenging the idea that some nature or thing arose by chance. For me, identifying intelligent design is pointing to any process that exhibits intelligent information or goal direction.
Click to expand...
You could have saved some time by asking if teleology exists as it references the universe. Which it will if you believe in a god and won’t if you don’t.
 
Wozza said:
Which it will if you believe in a god and won’t if you don’t.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are not really interested in what i have said since you have not responded to it.

It’s irrelevant whether or not someone believes in God. If one can identify goal direction or intelligent information in any physical system, then it follows that there is intelligent design and therefore an intelligent creator of that design. It wouldn’t matter if physical systems or a nature emerged by chance within the context of physical processes; it would still be true that physical reality is a product of an intelligently designed plan for the simple fact that we can identify intelligent information and goal direction in the system.
 
Last edited:
I
“IWantGod said:
Wozza said:
Which it will if you believe in a god and won’t if you don’t.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are not really interested in what i have said since you have not responded to it.

It’s irrelevant whether or not someone believes in God. If one can identify goal direction or intelligent information in any physical system, then it follows that there is intelligent design and therefore an intelligent creator of that design. It wouldn’t matter if physical systems or a nature emerged by chance within the context of physical processes; it would still be true that physical reality is a product of an intelligently designed plan for the simple fact that we can identify intelligent information and goal direction in the system.
Click to expand...

Goal direction is a matter of belief. You are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. If you believe it exists then you assume an intelligent designer. If not, then you won’t.

The two are so inextricably entwined that you cannot separate them. It makes no sense to ask ‘Does God exist if there is teleology as it relates to the universe?’ The only sensible question might e: ‘What sort of intelligence could exists if there is teleology?’

Then we could discuss deities.
 
IWantGod said:
If one can identify goal direction […] in any physical system, then it follows that there is intelligent design
Click to expand...
How does one identify goal direction, and why would it follow that there is intelligent design where there is goal direction?
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
IWantGod:
If one can identify goal direction […] in any physical system, then it follows that there is intelligent design
Click to expand...
How does one identify goal direction, and why would it follow that there is intelligent design where there is goal direction?
Click to expand...
It beats me how you identify it. But if one could then it would seem the next question would be ‘Whose goal is it?’ I would assume it could only be intelligent. Almost by definition.
 
IWantGod said:
Tier 1 Level Philosophy: Can you identify intelligent design in a system where all physical relationships in principle happen by chance?

In my opinion, to succeed at doing so, would represent the best intelligent design argument.

.
Click to expand...
No, I think this would be unintelligible, the contrary of intelligent design. In classic catholic philosophy, a chance event is one that happens beyond the intent of the proximate agent or efficient cause due to some other intervening cause and it is a philosophical axiom that every agent acts for an end, some knowingly so such as humans who have intelligence and some by nature or natural instinct. Now, it is inadmisable, unintelligible, and contrary to reason and faith that the world and everything in it, all the variety of creatures, are a product of chance and unintended by God who is the supreme intelligent agent and first cause of all.

Secondly, if all happened by chance there would be no sciences, laws of nature and uniformity in nature which is contrary to observation and reality. Education from kindergarten through college involves the study of various sciences does it not?
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
It beats me how you identify it. But if one could then it would seem the next question would be ‘Whose goal is it?’ I would assume it could only be intelligent. Almost by definition
Click to expand...
Trouble is if you can’t identify it you haven’t got a definition.
 
Wozza said:
Goal direction is a matter of belief.
Click to expand...
You have not really grasped the point of this thread.

For you perhaps, evidence is just a matter of faith. However, this is just a statement of your personal belief that one cannot identify goal direction. You have not proven your point. I am arguing that if one could identify goal direction in nature, then it is not just a matter of belief, and it would be true regardless of whether or not physical relationships or natures arise by chance…
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
Is it even possible for the monkeys to type gobbledygook?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by the word. I simply mean that symbols in and of themselves are meaningless. Intelligent beings assign meaning to symbols, in fact we only describe them as symbols because we assign some meaning to them. If a word does not have meaning, then it’s not a word. Thus it would be incoherent to suggest that monkeys could by accident or chance produce Alice In wonderland. In other-words chance cannot explain the existence of meaning or intelligent information. It cannot be by chance that some information is intelligent, because intelligence is intrinsically goal directed…
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
Goal direction is a matter of belief.
Click to expand...
You have not really grasped the point of this thread.

For you perhaps, evidence is just a matter of faith. However, this is just a statement of your personal belief that one cannot identify goal direction. You have not proven your point. I am arguing that if one could identify goal direction in nature, then it is not just a matter of belief, and it would be true regardless of whether or not physical relationships or nature arise by chance…
Click to expand...
Well yes. It is my belief that nobody has ever proved there is goal direction. I’ve never seen any convincing argument whatsoever. But I don’t have a point to prove. I see no goals. But if you do, then it is incumbent on you to prove it to my satisfaction.

But saying that if you could prove it then there must be intelligence is a tautology. It’s akin to saying that if you could prove that something could live forever then it must be immortal.
 
Wozza said:
But saying that if you could prove it then there must be intelligence is a tautology. It’s akin to saying that if you could prove that something could live forever then it must be immortal.
Click to expand...
Again you are jumping to conclusions about my intent. I was merely giving an example of how one might approach the possibility of proving intelligent design without conflicting with idea that all physical relationships occur by chance.

I never claimed to prove anything.
 
Richca said:
Secondly, if all happened by chance there would be no sciences, laws of nature and uniformity in nature which is contrary to observation and reality. Education from kindergarten through college involves the study of various sciences does it not?
Click to expand...
I’m talking about physical relationships. Two atoms may interact by chance and produce a definite effect according to the laws of physics. If all physical relationships were like that, this would not be contrary to the order we see in the universe, because it is the effects that creates the order. Once the relationship exists, it performs a definite ordered operation, and chance is no-longer involved, unless the effect in turn interacts with something else by chance and produces something new.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top