hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Regarding the first statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." funkyderek said:

  It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, . . .

  I agree that statements require more than being merely not inconsistent (and/or not requiring a logical inconsistency), in order to be considered scientific. This is why for example ReMine in his book later goes on to explain how the statement is both testable, and supported by scientific evidence.

  However, this thread was not intended by myself to be an attempt to scientifically support the statements claim of the necessity of a disgner for life from non-life (scientific resources for that claim are available)- but instead to demonstrate that properly written ID statements exist which do not necessarily lead to either an infinite regression of designers, or logical self-refutations.

  . . . and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin.

  As far as proving evidence that: "an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin", I would say that 1.) there is nothing necessarily illogical about such a scenario; and 2.) that statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." do not also necessarily require (in order to be valid) additional evidence for other things- such as how "an intelligent designer can exist without an origin". For example lets say that a group of SETI scientists received a radio signal and then (after analysis) stated that: "An intelligent sender is necessary for the origin of this mathematically coded signal." There would be no requirement that in order for their statement to be valid that they must also provide evidence for other things- such as how the signal sender could have came about from non-life, or how they may have always existed, etc. They simply need to show that their statement is testable, not necessarily illogical, and supported by data. (In fact if their data demonstrates their statements claim of the necessity of an intelligent sender, then this would then be evidence that an intelligent sender does in fact necessarily exist).
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Before addressing any non-logic issues, I feel that it is still important to continue for a while to clarify on the original topic. I will give another hypothetical ID theory/statement (which builds on the first). Here it is:

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."

  Once again this statement requires:

  1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.

  2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.

  (Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).

  Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

  It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin. If you do happen to make a self-contradictory statement while doing so, don't worry, we'll tell you.

  If the above example is also agreed to be non-contradictory, then I hope to proceed to other related issues (including the points in your above comment, though I may begin initially with with some other relevant issues).
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  xjdub said:

  If you say that the Intelligent Designer has always existed you have contradicted the theory you presented.

  There is nothing in the statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" that contradicts with a designer that has always existed. This is because the statement only states that a designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life, and thus a designer who has always existed would not fall under this since they would have no origin from non-life (nor any origin at all).
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:
  

  hooberus:

  Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers

  From a strictly logical viewpoint, that's correct. You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence. Examining it in any detail leads to a whole host of problems, but in and of itself, it avoids the problem of regression.

  and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?

  Agreed. As I wrote above, the sentence is internally consistent - as are all the ones I provided in response. Do you agree?

  I am glad that we are in agreement on at least the logical consistency issue of the particular statement that I posted.

  As far as your point that: "You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence." I would instead word it that the ID statement given does not also require designers to have all of the same charatersistics as the type of life in question (such as having an origin from non-life).

  Regarding the issue of internal consistency of the sentences you provided- I have seen no necessary logical inconsistency problem (though of course I don't necessarily agree with them).

  Furthermore, I also agree with your previous point that ". . . there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical" (In fact I may later go into other issues besides the issue of logical consistency). However, for now I hope to deal specifically with the logical consistency/non-inconsistency issue.

  Since we are in agreement that the previous simple ID theory and/or statement does not necessarily lead to logical inconsistency (such as being self-refuting, etc.), I will therefore proceed to post an additional longer ID statement that I feel is not inconsistent either.
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

  Well done, hooberus. You managed to formulate - or at least find - a sentence that is not self-contradictory. Well done indeed. I understand it's a big step for you.

  Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  kid-A said:

  As it stands, this statement would not preclude the necessity for an infinite regression of "designers" if you do indeed consider your deity a "life-form", regardless of whether that being is "biological" or not.

  Since it there is nothing in the statement that requires the designer to himself have an origin from non-life, the statement does not therefore require the designer to also have their own designer, ad infinitum.
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Leolaia said:

  Since we are talking only within the realm of logic, I have to wonder that if the Designer TM can be eternal tho having intelligence, organization, and what not, why cannot the universe and life itself (with all its wonderful "designs") be similarly eternal? After all, if we leave out the possibility of eternity, your posited Designer would just be the last in a potentially infinite series of Designers, as you put it. If the Designer need not be designed "themself" because of having eternal existence, why cannot the universe be similarly undesigned (tho having all the apperance of design that the Designer "themself" would have) if it eternally exists as well? As I recall, Aristotle or one of the other Greek philosophers pondered this question.

  The ID theory/statement that I posted does not in itself exclude the possibility of an eternal universe with no designer. It was short statement dealing specifically with the issue of the origin of life from non-life.
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus: It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life

  I agree that as stated it would not require life to arise from non-life. However, you must surely be aware that it would require life to exist from nothing, whether or not it originated from nothing.

  In talking about the existence of an eternal designer it is probably more accurate to use the term self-existent rather than "exist from nothing".
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

  The above statement involves:

  1.) No necessary infinite regression of designers- It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life (and thus require their own designer, ad infinitum). For example there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the possibility of the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

  2.) No required self-refutation- It does not also require the existence of some life that has an origin from non-life without a designer, since it doesn't require the designer to even have an origin from non-life at all.

  If no one disagrees with the logicical status of this first simple ID statement, I will proceed to move on to list other logically consistent theories of ID.
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Oh goody. "Evidence" for a "faith". The whole problem with ID is it pretends it's science, while it completely rejects science.

  The statement "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." is not provable. What more, it is sort of an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, "I can't see how life could have arisen without an intelligent designer, ergo, ID."

  ackack

  For how the statement is both testable and backed up by more than "personal incredulity" see the book. As I said before this thread is about logical consistency.