Jump to content

PrimalMinister

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-45

About PrimalMinister

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    AI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?
  2. We have evidence of the design process of laptops, laptops were designed by us. I am not so interested that, I guess that is the job of intelligent design proponents (which is what I am asking). Its just that I have looked at intelligent design and it seems to all boil down to this point, where is the line. But its often presented as something different from people disparaging intelligent design, I just wonder whether they have honestly looked at it. There is clearly a line, its just undefined, but isn't it legitimate to ask where that line is? Creativity is a strange creature in science, its there but not really acknowledged. Like in evolutionary theory, creativity is the mutations, random, but at the same time creative. Evolution via natural selection cannot be the whole answer. Natural selection is a passive attribute of the universe, not an active one, its not creative, its the mutations that are creative. These natural process people talk about are all passive attributes of the universe, that is how science defines them. All of them. Modern science is not about creativity, none of it, its all about passive attributes of the universe. To borrow a concept from a different culture, scientific models are inherently Yin like (from the Yin and Yang of the Tao), they do not describe creative processes, they can't, by design they are not creative. Creativity exists in the universe, we are creative, we are evidence the universe supports creativity. But is the universe as creative as we are? Not according to our models which model only the passive attributes of the universe. But creativity creeps in, its just not really discussed. But its there.
  3. Look, I am not saying there is anything supernatural, there isn't. But if you exclude life, and just look at the actions of the universe, there is no combination of natural forces that could create a laptop, natural forces are just not that creative. That means there is a threshold, a line above which, the universe cannot create. A laptop is evidence of that, it crosses that line.
  4. Do you mean what happens if someone finds out natural processes can create laptops?
  5. I am not interested in a designer, that is not the point of my question. My question is, is it legitimate to ask where that line is, because there is a line. Intelligent designers exist, we are intelligent designers, my evidence for intelligent designers existing is us. Whether there is a God or not, there isn't, is irrelevant.
  6. No, I am saying surely a laptop cannot be created by natural processess, which means there is a line which natural processes (excluding life) cant go beyond. You say the line doesn't exist when it clearly does, the universe is not creative enough to create a laptop by itself, so a laptop crosses the line. The line is there.
  7. So natural processes (excluding us, intelligent agents) can create laptops? What combination of the wind blowing, lightening striking or other natural processes are going to create a laptop. I don't believe in any God nonsense but intelligent agents exist, we are intelligent agents.
  8. My question is, could intelligent design be legitimate if it actually did some science? For example, a laptop has the signiture of intelligent design, no one would say that a laptop is the product of natural forces, it quite clearly has an intelligent agent(s) behind it. Surely it is legitimate to ask where the line between natural forces and intelligence is? I don't think intelligence design proponents do any science regarding where this line is, but there must be a limit to natural processes after which something becomes the product of intelligence. I am not an intelligent design proponent, I am just curious. A lot of stuff I read about disparaging intelligent design doesn't seem to mention this, even though it seems a legitimate question to ask. So would intelligent design become legitimate if studies they did clearly defined that line so it could be applied to real world examples to see if they are the product of natural causes or intelligence?
  9. We are told that spacetime bends and warps in the presence of mass. If we remove this mass does the spacetime straighten out again? If so what causes this.
  10. You are right. But for instance if I am right, then science (as you explained it) would say the universe is a virtual reality machine. So while science currently isnt able to explain what the universe is, it maybe able to in the future. So philosophical questions are useful, because they probe what we don't understand. They try to make sense of the mystery and turn it into knowledge. And there is a mystery, it is what drives scientists, I have heard them talk about it.
  11. But is that just because we don't have the science to answer it?
  12. I have come to believe the universe is effectivily a virtual reality machine, but the administrators say its pie in the sky without explaining why, the thread is always closed just as we are getting to the critical juncture. Anyway, if you think I what I am suggesting is fairy tales, fine you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what does science say the universe *is* exactly?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.