BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name: Beep Beep
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Intelligent Designer


Argument: ~ If an intelligent designer exists, it cannot be an omniscient god.
~*~
  • 1. What is an intelligent designer?
  • 2. An intelligent designer designs things.
  • 3. An intelligent designer exhibits intelligence.
  • 4. What is intelligence?
  • 5. Intelligence is the capacity to learn.
  • 6. An omnicient god is a god which knows everything.
  • 7. Therefore, an omniscient god doesn't need to learn anything.
  • 8. Therefore an omniscient god cannot be an intelligent designer.
  • 9. A god which was not all-knowing would be less than perfect.
  • 10. Therefore, only a less than perfect god could be an intelligent designer.


    Same argument expressed slightly differently:
  • 1. Definition: X is intelligent means X has the capacity to learn.
  • 2. For any X, X has the capacity to learn LOGICALLY IMPLIES that there is something which X doesn't know.
  • 3. If God exists then God is omniscient (knows all that there is to know).
  • 4. Thus by 3 & 2, God doesn't have the capacity to learn.
  • 5. Thus by 4 & 1, God is not intelligent.
  • 6. Every intelligent designer is intelligent.
  • 7. Therefore by 5 & 6, God is not an intelligent designer.

(With thanks to Polaterality)

LINKS:

If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer.

By calling god an "intelligent designer" (one who has the capacity to learn, reason and understand); one downgrades an omniscient god, (one who knows everything already), to one who "knows a lot." - beepbeepitsme



Link

49 Comments:

Blogger Parge said...

Of course, if you change the premise that intelligence is a "manifestation of a high mental capacity" it throws a wrench into the whole arguement.

One could argue that god is not intelligent, but a bit of a screw up. I mean, look at humans. ;)

30/9/06 5:12 AM  
Blogger Kingdom Advancer said...

Definition of intelligent:
Having intelligence; Having a high degree of intelligence.

Definition of intelligence: The capacity to acquire AND APPLY knowledge; SUPERIOR MENTAL CAPACITY.

Definition of omniscient: knowing everything; Having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight; Possessed of universal or complete knowledge.


God, as omniscient, does not need to acquire knowledge. He COULD (as in, He has the capacity)--but He has no need and will never have the need , for He is the source of all knowledge. There's no knowledge for Him to gain. He does, however, apply His knowledge. And He does have infinitely superior mental powers, and an unapproachably high degree of intelligence(knowledge).

The Bible neither uses the term "Intelligent Designer" nor "Omniscient." They both are clearly implied. Henceforth, however, you cannot use just any piece of the English definition of intelligence to make a case. That is intellectually insufficient and dishonest.

One last note: an "intelligent designer" does design things. But you, my fellow bloggers, cannot even comprehend how the term "intelligent designer" applies to God. He designed from nothing. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void. And darkness was over the face of the deep."--Genesis 1:1-2) No one besides He can do that.

30/9/06 5:41 AM  
Blogger Nate said...

What the heck- I wrote this for someone else, but it deals with "proving" God exists (of course, the dubiousness of proving anything is well documented by both quantum indeterminacy and deconstruction in philosophy). But,what the heck, here is another way of looking at the "meta-question" of God and meaning in the Universe:

Which Story fulfills our stories?
"The Beatles" once wrote a song which said "All we need is love. All we need is love. All we need is love, love. Love is all we need." Poets laud it. Artists paint it. Musicians write endless songs about it. Practically every plot for every story revolves around it: love found, love lost, love defended, love despised, love against all odds. Love for children, for family, for country, for lovers. People will face the greatest challenges, worst defeats, and deepest sacrifices for Love. Yet, infants will quit eating and shrivel and die without it. "I Love You" may be the most powerful sentence ever uttered.
Humans yearn to give themselves totally to another and be completely known, cared for, and valued in return. But the question is: Why are humans hard wired for love? What underlying Plot best explains the human obsession with, and need for, love? Several Stories attempt to explain this.
"The Story of Everything from Nothing" tells us there is no God, no Creator, and no underlying purpose behind the Universe. We are here from a complex, yet random interaction of physical forces that drive us to exist at greater and greater levels of complexity and adaptation, until everything finally implodes into nothingness at the end of the universe. The purpose of existence is to continue to exist as long, as powerfully, and as skillfully as possible. And then cease to exist. That's it.
But is love merely a bonding force to unify us into families so that we breed and exist longer? It could be, but there's a problem. If efficiency, skill, and power are the reason for existence, then love makes people do things that are frankly stupid. People care for those who are maladapted to exist- the poor, needy, and handicapped- for love's sake. People sacrifice power- upward mobility, promotions, and wealth - for love's sake. People even sacrifice their own lives for love. Love does not put food on the table, or money in the bank account, or make our lives simpler or more efficient. If the universe's purpose is to evolve and exist, then love as we know it is not a positive adaptation. It is a negative liability that makes us maladapted in most circumstances.
And not only that, but what people does society applaud? Those who are examples of self-interested power, or those who are examples of self-giving love? Love wins. Not only that, but why worry about beauty or make things pleasant if we could just make them functional? Why do certain sounds please us as music? Why are we self-conscious and worry about plots and stories? Why not just operate on instinct without worrying about such things as guilt, worry, sarcasm, or even happiness? Why are we hard wired to ask why? All of these things are simply liabilities if we have no "purpose" but to exist and evolve, and a universe without God cannot plausibly account for them.
"The Story of the Life Force" says there is an impersonal energy or power that animates all matter and gives life to the universe. We are all part of this force, and if we look deep enough into ourselves, we will find that we are one with It. And if we keep realizing this unity, our "self" will dissolve into the everything that is in all, and we will become one with the Force. This unifying Force can be called "love" since it does one of the things that love does: it unifies. But, while this provides a better explanation for the human need for love, it is not complete for one reason: love happens between persons. An impersonal thing- a rock, a television, or even a computer- cannot feel love, choose love, experience love, or yearn for love. Only a person, not a "Force", can account for why we are made as conscious persons who deeply need loving relationships.
"The Story of the Dueling Gods" says there are a number of competing personal gods in a spiritual world that account for our natural world. Some of these gods love, some hate, some destroy, and some create. But, this does not make sense of the supremacy of love in human experience. If it is true that love, hate, creation, and destruction are all equal "gods" with equal value, then why are they not all valued equally? Why do we not celebrate hate and destruction like we do love and creation? If love is universally valued and needed more than any of the other values, then there must be a superior personal "god" that rules the other "gods" to account for it.
"The Story of the Impotent God" is the drama of a God who creates us all to love, but then everything gets out of hand. There are too many creatures to share love with. The creatures are also too stubborn, selfish, and powerful for God to control. God really wants to love everyone, but evil overcomes God and God just can’t do it. God feels for us and weeps for us, but in the end is just too impotent to do much about it. God might be a nice person who we really like, but it is evil who we ultimately have to bow to. A God who loves, but who does not have the power to make love work, simply cannot account for the hope and love that humans yearn for.
"The Story of the Absentee God" says there is a personal God who created everything, but after creating, this God just let everything run on without any further intervention. It's kind of like a Cosmic Science Project (and we are the project!). God is big and great and all-wise and all-powerful, but completely uninvolved. God is the ultimate neglectful Parent who "hard-wired" us to love as part of his science project. God is thus a hypocrite who wants us to share ourselves with others, when God refuses to share Godself.
Also, if love is merely a command or a law, it is not love (at least not the love that humans yearn for). We yearn for a love that transcends all other loves, that will never leave us or forsake us, that will give meaning to life and conquer death. Many, never finding this love, give up on it altogether or settle for lesser loves, never fulfilled. But, beneath all our longings we are ultimately yearning for God to share God's very self with us in love.
But, if God is uninvolved- an absentee Parent- this can never happen. Furthermore, if love is simply something God commands, and not something that God is, then love has no secure basis. God could have just as easily programmed the world to revolve around hate or greed. If God is not love, then love cannot be absolute. Yet, love feels like an absolute. Look at drama, literature, poetry, music, and art. Look at yourself. The only satisfying Story is that love comes from a God who is Love.
Only "The Story of the Relational God" brings us to the strange, surprising, yet satisfying fulfillment of humanity's hopes, dreams, loves, and yearnings. It is the Story of a God who is Love, who makes us to love, and who gives us the freedom to love. It is the Story of a God who allows his beloved to reject him, but who never gives up reaching out to bring his beloved back to himself. It is the Story of a love that will not die, but which powerfully works throughout time and space until every creature is brought to fulfillment and joy in his love.

At least, that's some of my thoughts on it.

Be blessed...

30/9/06 6:09 AM  
Blogger Procrastinatrix said...

Never thought of it that way. Good points. You always give me ammunition for my arsenal...thanks!

Rose

30/9/06 6:16 AM  
Blogger Austin said...

Using your definition of intelligent, a person who knows absolutely nothing would be the most intelligent person possible because he/she would have the greatest capacity to learn. A person who knows everything would then be the least intelligent person possible, having no capacity to learn.

Obviously this is backwards. Who is more intelligent - someone who knows his/her abc's but cannot read, or someone who can read in seven languages? Think about it.

30/9/06 8:22 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Could I suggest that the chaotic world we live in demonstrates clearly that nothing remotely intelligent or loving could have been involved in its crazy 'design'.

30/9/06 2:32 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE Parge:

"Of course, if you change the premise that intelligence is a "manifestation of a high mental capacity" it throws a wrench into the whole arguement."

Of course it depends on the definition of intelligence. I took mine from dictionary.com where the primary meaning - first cab off the rank, so to speak is >> 1. The capacity to learn.

30/9/06 6:22 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE kingdom advancer:

Anyone can apply knowledge, it takes the capacity to learn, to know whether or not the knowledge is being applied in a meaningful way.

The dictionary definition I used for intelligence comes from dictionary.com where "the capacity to learn" is the primary definition of intelligence.

INTELLIGENCE : ~ capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

If a being supposedly is all-knowing or omniscient, it cannot demonstrate the capacity to learn and therefore it is incapable of displaying one of the primary behaviours associated with intelligence.

If something is all knowing, it isn't intelligent, it is omniscient. Humans are intelligent, omniscient beings are omniscient.

30/9/06 6:32 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE nate:

"The Story of Everything from Nothing" tells us there is no God, no Creator, and no underlying purpose behind the Universe."

What story of "everything from nothing." No atheist that I know makes such a claim and I certainly don't make the claim. Rather it appears to me that theists claim that their god came from nothing.

30/9/06 6:35 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE rose:

No worries :)

RE austin:
"Using your definition of intelligent, a person who knows absolutely nothing would be the most intelligent person possible because he/she would have the greatest capacity to learn."

Don't confuse knowledge with intelligence.

INTELLIGENCE 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

KNOWLEDGE 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

Someone can accumulate a lot of facts and information, (knowledge), but it takes intelligence to apply it.

Intelligence is what we DO with all that knowledge. For example: I can recite many passages from Shakespeare. But it takes higher order intelligence to use the tradegies of shakespeare to formulate a model which explains operant conditioning.

It is the abilty to compare and contrast sometimes disparate and discrete information and come up with something entirely unforseen which constitutes new areas of knowledge that best describes intelligence.

Because intelligence in this sense is exhibiting its capacity to learn.

30/9/06 6:55 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE daniel: Of course you can :)

30/9/06 6:56 PM  
Blogger Mike Pitzler said...

tradegy. tragedy. mmm. tragedy. ok. just got up for a glass of milk. Board Housewife, my friend, asked me to post a link to her blog.

Ecclesiastes 3:14-15 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it; and God hath done it, that men should fear before him. 15 That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away.

30/9/06 7:07 PM  
Blogger Daniel said...

I think that quote from the Bible by Mike really clears everything up! Wot?

30/9/06 8:52 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE mike:

"Splendid you rise in heaven's lightland,
O living Aten, creator of life!
When you have dawned in eastern lightland,
You fill every land with your beauty.
You are beauteous, great, radiant,
High over every land;
Your rays embrace the lands,
To the limit of all that you made.
Being Re, you reach their limits,
You bend them for the son whom you love;
Though you are far, your rays are on earth,
Though one sees you, your strides are unseen." (From The Great Hymn to Aten)

Passes the collection plate.

30/9/06 9:45 PM  
Blogger a rose is a rose said...

how can i NOT love this blog? alice? pigs flying? your name, beepbeepitsme?

wicked cool all around

30/9/06 10:42 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

By calling god an "intelligent designer" (one who has the capacity to learn, reason and understand; one downgrades an omniscient god, (one who knows everything already), to one who "knows a lot."

1/10/06 2:31 AM  
Blogger Kingdom Advancer said...

You just don't get it, do you beepbeep?
God as an "Intelligent Designer" does not imply that God doesn't know everything, but that HE DOES KNOW THINGS. This is as opposed to your theory: MINDLESS evolution. The Intelligent Design movement demonstrates clearly the implausibility of random chance to create such a complex universe.

Intelligent design means that somebody was behind it--somebody knew what He was doing. Every INTELLIGENT human being admits that your 'god'--the theory of Evolution--is both inconceivable and improbable. (With the odds being about 1 in a million trillion, or worse.)

And, as I've already said, "intelligent designer" is not in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't come from the original Greek or Hebrew. Therefore, you have to take the definition FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT. Not "the first definition I found on so-and-so.com."

"Could I suggest that the chaotic world we live in demonstrates clearly that nothing remotely intelligent or loving could have been involved in its crazy 'design'." --Daniel

You seem serious, and yet I want to laugh. If you are serious, I pity you. If you are capable of saying this with a clean conscience, then you must not have thought about it before you typed it. You say that an intelligent being couldn't have created such a crazy world. But what you don't realize is that it is not God's fault that mankind has turned its back on Him and messed up the whole universe. God is responsible, however, for designing things like the human eye. Maybe you should go to the library and read a book about the human eye--just for starters.

"Intelligence is what we DO with that knowledge."--Beepbeep

So, how about this? God holds all knowledge. He applied that knowledge to create the entire universe. All your knowledge and intelligence can't create ANYTHING in the format that God created it.

Beepbeep, Austin is right on track, in spite of what you think. Your "capacity to learn" implies that the more you learn, the less you have a capacity to learn, and therefore the less intelligent you are. By your impartial definition, you could say that a newborn baby is "more intelligent" than any adult to ever have lived, because that baby has such a high "capacity to learn," from learning how to say "dadda" to how to split an atom.
In fact, however, today's usage of the word is almost synonymous with the possession of knowledge and a high mental ability. God, as an "intelligent designer," simply possesses all knowledge and has the highest of mental abilities.

Oh, by the way, "everything from nothing" is called EVOLUTION. Maybe you've heard of it. If you truly think yourself to believe in no God, the only other option is that everything came from nothing--no mixtures and no mixers. And, uh, where did the elements before (causing) and after (resulting) from this supposed Big Bang come from?

1/10/06 8:18 AM  
Blogger Kingdom Advancer said...

"...By your impartial definition,..." --Kingdom Advancer.

Apologies: I actually meant to say by your PARTIAL definition.

1/10/06 9:55 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE kingdom advancer:

"You just don't get it, do you beepbeep?
God as an "Intelligent Designer" does not imply that God doesn't know everything, but that HE DOES KNOW THINGS."

You apparently missed the focus of the whole argument which was :

Argument: ~ If an intelligent designer exists, it cannot be an omniscient god.

So, you have just agreed with me, that if intelligent means "to know things", but not everything, then the intelligent designer cannot be an omniscient god.


By calling god an "intelligent designer" (one who has the capacity to learn, reason and understand); one downgrades an omniscient god, (one who knows everything already), to one who "knows a lot."

1/10/06 10:11 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE kingdom advancer: "...By your impartial definition,..." --Kingdom Advancer. Apologies: I actually meant to say by your PARTIAL definition. "

An intelligent designer is one who would display intelligence.

Intelligence is the capacity to learn, reason and understand.

What does the bible say about "intelligence" or "reason"?

From Isaiah20:14 - "Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Now of course when I read the bible, as a non-believer, I just see it as the words of men claiming their god can do all sorts of neat stuff, so my understanding of such passages is from that perspective.

Aparently god isn't too keen on wise people, or intelligent people and he is gunna blow them all out of the water with a magic trick or two.

Cool, I will bring the popcorn.

Now, what does the bible say about reason?

Job 12:13 - "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and undertstanding are his."

Ahhh, so the claim is that god has a monopoly on wisdom, power and understanding. How convenient.

And he doesn't want any competition in this regard because in Job 12: 25-25 "He (god) deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason; he sends them wandering through a trackless waste. They grope in darkness with no light; he makes them stagger like drunkards."

Well, that isn't very nice is it. God deliberately turns leaders into retards because he can't stomach competition?

Naughty, naughty god. Smack smack.

1/10/06 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Polaterality said...

This is a response to kingdom advancer. Their text is indented.
>Definition of intelligent:
>Having intelligence; Having a high degree of intelligence.

>Definition of intelligence: The capacity to acquire AND APPLY knowledge; SUPERIOR
>MENTAL CAPACITY.

Well if this dictionary uses 'and' in an inclusive sense then intelligence involves both the capacity to acquire as well as to apply knowledge.If God exists then since God cannot acquire any new knowledge since he already has all knowledge, then God cannot be intelligent in this sense.
The 2nd sense is 'superior mental capacity'.But this is unspecified as to what the mental capacity is for. It cannot be for learning or thinking since the former involves gaining knowledge and hence by the above argument God cannot gain, and cannot be for thinking since if God or,or thus, God's mind exists outside time , and thinking is a process occuring in minds over time, then God cannot think. Also it cannot be thinking that causes God to gain knowledge - again by the first argument.
Suppose however it is capacity for knowledge. There is an ambiguity here in 'mental capacity' since one sense logically implies that there is capacity for something new in God's mind. But if God is immutable or timeless, or his mind is immutable or timeless, there is no capacity for something new in God's mind since this logically implies God or his mind are not immutable, or that God or God's mind changes.Thus if it is capacity for knowledge it could mean 'superior mental capacity' in the sense of God having more knowledge than any other being.
>Definition of omniscient: knowing everything; Having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight; Possessed of universal or
>complete knowledge.
Incidentally, I'm not going to consider different concepts of what 'omniscient' expresses in my response.

>God, as omniscient, does not need to acquire knowledge. He COULD (as in, He has the
>capacity)--but He has no need and will never have the need , for He is the source of all
>knowledge. There's no knowledge for Him to gain.
My argument above concludes that God cannot acquire any knowledge nor think.You yourself admit this when you claim there's no knowledge for him to gain. But then you also contradict the previous sentence when you claim he could.
>He does, however, apply His knowledge.
To apply knowledge surely involves using it to think about something to gain new specific knowledge.But there are 2 arguments concluding God cannot apply knowledge: the arguments above: one concluding that God cannot think, the other that God cannot gain new knowledge.

>He does have infinitely superior mental powers, and an unapproachably high degree of
> intelligence(knowledge).
What do you mean 'infinitely superior'? And what are 'mental powers' except thinking processes -which I have argued above that God cannot have, since all processes occur within time.You have also equivocated intelligence with knowledge, in the 2nd sentence.
>The Bible neither uses the term "Intelligent Designer" nor "Omniscient." They both are clearly
>implied.
Thus I conclude you believe that God is an intelligent designer in the literal sense( i.e. a designer who is intelligent) and is omniscient.
Here is the 2nd argument on beepbeep's blog again:
1. Definition: X is intelligent means X has the capacity to learn.
2. For any X, X has the capacity to learn LOGICALLY IMPLIES that there is something which X doesn't know.
3. If God exists then God is omniscient (knows all that there is to know).
4. Thus by 3 & 2, God doesn't have the capacity to learn.
5. Thus by 4 & 1, God is not intelligent.
6. Every intelligent designer is intelligent.
7. Therefore by 5 & 6, God is not an intelligent designer.

The 1st premiss is logically implied by one sense of your definition of 'intelligent' above namely 'the capacity to learn and apply knowledge'. The 2nd premiss is in fact logically implied by the meaning of 'capacity to learn'.If you use the 2nd sense of your definition of 'intelligent' only, if it is meaningful, and if implies the capacity to gain knowledge i.e. learn,then it implies the 2nd premiss.Either way the 2nd premiss is implied.The only other basic premisses are 3. - which your definition of 'omniscient' logically implies - and 6, asserting that every intelligent designer is intelligent, which is logically implied if 'intelligent designer' means a designer that is intelligent.
Thus the argument should be accepted on your own definitions of 'intelligent' and 'omniscient' if you accept the 2nd sense of your definition of 'intelligent' implies the capacity to gain knowledge, and if you accept premiss 6.
>Henceforth, however, you cannot use just any piece of the English definition of intelligence to >make a case. That is intellectually insufficient and dishonest.

I've already proven the argument in bulett points above has basic premisses which are either logically implied by your own definitions ,if if you accept the 2nd sense of your definition of 'intelligent' implies the capacity to gain knowledge, and if you accept premiss 6( which is taking 'intelligent designer to mean a designer who is intelligent). I think that is intellectually sufficent to prove the conclusion and thus intellectually honest.
>One last note: an "intelligent designer" does design things. But you, my fellow bloggers, cannot
>even comprehend how the term "intelligent designer" applies to God. He designed from
>nothing. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless
>and void. And darkness was over the face of the deep."--Genesis 1:1-2)
I'm unsure what 'designed from nothing' means here. It could mean that God didn't use anything except his mind to design anything, or mean that God was not affected by the existence of anything other than himself when he designed. Either way or by any other meaning, to 'design' surely involves thinking - again by the arguments above not something which a timeless or an omniscient being can do.
>No one besides He can do that.
Suppose that God exists.By this I mean the god of so-called classical theism with the usual divine attributes. I dont know how the mere existence of such a being implies that he is unique in being ABLE to 'design from nothing' or even what you wrote implying actually being unique in having in the past 'designed from nothing'.Can you prove this on common ground from defining 'designed from nothing' - or perhaps you are indirectly preaching?
I conclude that it's logically impossible for an omniscient, timeless deity to literally be or have any of the following: intelligence, ability to think,ability to learn, ability to design.
However, suppose that it is proven that everything that the theist proves about their deity from these attributes is provable from other attributes such as omniscience.Then the theist can accept my conclusion without any loss to what they claim to be able to prove about their deity from it's attributes.But of course this has to be proven.
In my experience some people often deceive themselves or are deliberately dishonest about their sematics. In general consider a person, and a text. There are many kinds of semantic self-deception that can occur for e.g:
1.Changing meanings and believing one hasn't.
2. Having interpretation rules of, or meanings for the text that are: not provable on common ground or from one's own beliefs, arbitrarily determined (a theist could claim the source is not arbitrary but religious experience) or flexible enough to interpret the text in any way to avoid contradictions.( Here 'interpreting' will mean simply assigning a meaning to the text.I allow for the possiblity that some of a text can have multiple meanings).
3.The person confusing their meaning of a term with that which he believes is at least one of meanings authors intended meanings of it.
Given this, an example of 1. could be if the theist claims to FIRST have a literal meaning for God as intelligent,able to think, able to learn,or able to design, then accept it's logically impossible and then LATER create a nonliteral meaning for these claiming they had this nonliteral meaning FIRST, and all the time.This could involve them claiming it was always there but hard to express until later. It would be better for them to admit they were mistaken that their deity can have these attributes literally and then abandon using these terms as attributes altogether, or, if these terms can be assigned a nonliteral meaning using a proven semantic relationship of their literal meaning to OTHER divine attributes, then they could now have a different meaning to their literal meaning.
An example of 3 is claiming that the later meaning for the terms was always implied by some meanings of their religious texts. But this could involve 2, and even if not, they must admit their first meaning is not in their text and also leads to contradiction. They can also claim that they always had in mind the meanings implied by their text but of course this is an example of 1 and also of 3: confusing their meaning for the term with what they believe is the text's meaning.
Frankly I have struggled to classify the possible kinds of semantic self-deception but I hope that I've written enough to exemplify them.

1/10/06 11:53 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE pola: I couldn't have said it better, because I didn't :)

1/10/06 2:00 PM  
Blogger Kingdom Advancer said...

So it's same to assume, then, that if I call my Congressman, I can say that I have at least two atheists willing to support teaching "Omniscient Design" in schools? No? That's what I thought. You all are playing with words. You can call God any of the following:
Omniscient Designer
Ultimately Smart Designer
Ingenious to the Maximum Designer
So Intellectual He Knows Everything Designer
Intelligent Designer--meaning that someone Who possesses knowledge--ALL knowledge in God's case--designed the universe, as opposed to someone or something who DOESN'T possess knowledge.

As you've ignored twice, I've been saying that this term is not in the Bible. You used my statement "it's implied" to say that it's basically in the Bible. That's not what I meant. What I meant was just that which I said above.

You refer to God "not having the capacity to acquire knowledge" as if He does not have the power. As if, if somehow new facts entered into existence, God, as omniscient, wouldn't have "the capacity" to learn them. That's not how God does not have the capacity of learning. He does not have the "capacity to learn" because He has no need to. That doesn't make him un-intelligent. That's like saying that a brain surgeon (and expert) is unintelligent because he has no need to study brain surgery books, because "he doesn't have the capacity to learn anything new."

I trust that most people are INTELLIGENT enough to see through your all's "word dancing."

3/10/06 8:44 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: kingdom advancer:

RE: "So it's same to assume, then, that if I call my Congressman, I can say that I have at least two atheists willing to support teaching "Omniscient Design" in schools? No? That's what I thought. You all are playing with words."

No, I don't support the teaching of either: 1. Omnicient design 2. Ultimately smart designer 3. Ingenious to the Maximum Designer 4. So intellectual he knows everything designer. It seems that YOU are the one who wishes to "play with words".

Now, let me qualify it for you, I don't support these god theories being taught in science classes.

Science provides models to explain the natural world. It does not, nor can it, provide models to explain god.

Theology provides models that explain god. If you want theology, or some sort of comparative religion taught in your schools and you want to call this theology, "The So Intellectual He Knows Everything Designer Theory", then you need to lobby for religious education to be taught in your public schools. But not in a science class, in a religious class.

My understanding of this is that it doesn't abide with "the separation of church and state". Though I am sure you have a misguided belief that "god belief" is somehow scientific.

Having said this, private schools can teach that the world was created by The Ultra Flatulent Flying Alien Poop Monster, as long as they manage to get enough people who want to pay to hear the sermons as part of their education.

Also, it is not "playing with words", it is defining the argument, by defining the meaning of words.

3/10/06 1:33 PM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: kingdom advancer:

RE: "You refer to God "not having the capacity to acquire knowledge" as if He does not have the power. As if, if somehow new facts entered into existence, God, as omniscient, wouldn't have "the capacity" to learn them. That's not how God does not have the capacity of learning. He does not have the "capacity to learn" because He has no need to."

Correct, you canot claim that your god is omniscient AND an intelligent designer because "intelligence" requires as part of its definition the capacity to learn.

There is obviously no need for an omniscient being to learn anything, therefore it is inaccurate to call an omniscient god an intelligent designer.

RE: " That doesn't make him un-intelligent."
I didn't claim that it would make a supposed god unintelligent, just not omniscient.

RE: "That's like saying that a brain surgeon (and expert) is unintelligent because he has no need to study brain surgery books, because "he doesn't have the capacity to learn anything new."

Firstly, are there brain surgeons out there who are incapable of learning? If they are incapable of learning, is it because: -
1. They are omniscient?
2. They claim to be omniscient?
3. Have a motor neurone disease which impairs their ability to learn?
4. Have some other intellectual disorder which would exclude them from being able to process new information?

I wouldn't claim that a brain surgeon who is incapable of learning was unintelligent, just that he wasn't omniscient.

Or perhaps he/she had suffered some intellectual dysfunction or similar incapacity which rendered him/her incapable of being able to process and learn new information.

RE: "I trust that most people are INTELLIGENT enough to see through your all's "word dancing."

I wouldn't "trust" that people, collectively, are intelligent enough to formulate new methods of shoe-tying.

Though, sometimes individuals are able to demonstrate that they understand arguments. You, on the other hand, have been unable to demonstrate this.

3/10/06 1:58 PM  
Blogger Kingdom Advancer said...

First of all, I do not claim that "god-belief" is scientific, but I do believe that explaining the probability of an Intelligent Designer is. "Evolution" is just as un-scientific, if not more. Having a god is not a required element of a religion. Atheists generally fall into the category of "secular humanists." This is a religion. It is a religion that makes man and his ability to reason the "god" of their religion. Evolution is the main way to "explain their origins," as you would say theists--and all other religions--explain their origins. Therefore, if teaching the potential and probability of an Intelligent Designer is not allowed in a classroom, than secular humanists/evolutionists/atheists are themselves trying to establish a religion, the religion of secular atheistic humanism--violating the separation of church and state.

This goes without mentioning the often fraudulent "proof" put forward for Evolution, as well as the fact that it is often taught AS FACT, which is more than un-scientific: it's a malicious and straight-out lie.

Lastly, as an Australian, I would not expect you to understand the meaning of America's separation of church and state, for the vast majority of Americans do not. That wording does not even appear in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government "shall not establish a religion." This was to assure citizens that the government would not interfere with their freedom of religion--not vice versa. The term "separation of church and state" appeared first in a letter by Thomas Jefferson TO BAPTISTS, assuring them that the government would not establish CONGREGATIONALISM as the state church, like Anglicanism was in England.

Yet, now, in every public arena almost, it seems that secular humanism--or, if not that, than universalism--is established as the state religion. The Intelligent Design Movement is not asking to be the only science taught in schools. It wants to be taught alongside Evolution as an alternate. Why won't evolutionists accept this? Because they want to keep their monopoly on child-brainwashing.

Lastly, since you still won't --and obviously will never-- get my logical explanation of Intelligent Designer, I will say no more on it now.

4/10/06 3:28 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE kingdom advancer:

As I have stated previously, this is not a competition between your god belief and evolution.

Even if you manage in some "miraculous way" to prove that ALL science is wrong, including all modern cosmology, astro-physics and quantum theory, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR GOD.

Let me say again, so it might permeate the dim, dark recesses of whatever part of your brain is still able to process and understand reason.

I am convinced that you have a major comprehension problem. This, coupled with your inability to understand what is a logical argument, is evidence in itself why you rely on faith.

Even if you can disprove ALL of evolution, it does NOT mean that your god exists. You need to make the case for your god, you do NOT make a case for the existence of a god, by saying modern cosmology is wrong, therefore god exists.

This type of argument is an example of a false dichotomy, or a false dilemma, or the fallacy of the excluded middle, the false correlative or the either/or fallacy.

A false dichotomy involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the ONLY options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

You wish to argue that if evolution is wrong, then creationism is right. Let me say it again: THIS IS LOGICALLY UNSOUND.

But, it is at least amusing to me to realize that the very thing that you profess to be able to use to prove the existence of your god, that is, the scientific method, is the very thing that would have had you roasting over a pit in the city square with a red hot poker firming planted up your arse.

As this was just one of the delightful christian punishments for those who espoused heretical scientific theories.

I suggest that you use the scientific method to prove the existence of your god with no reference to evolution or modern cosmology. Go right ahead.

RE: "Yet, now, in every public arena almost, it seems that secular humanism--or, if not that, than universalism--is established as the state religion. The Intelligent Design Movement is not asking to be the only science taught in schools. It wants to be taught alongside Evolution as an alternate. Why won't evolutionists accept this? Because they want to keep their monopoly on child-brainwashing."

Ok, I am now convinced that you have very little understanding of words and the meaning of words. I had my suspicions, but that last paragragh was the clincher.

Firstly, secular humanism is not a religion.

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Secular humanism has a set of beliefs.

It does not have a set of beliefs concerning the cause or purpose of the universe.

It does not believe that a superhuman agency is responsible for the creation of said universe.

It does not have devotional or ritual observances.

It does suggest a moral code without belief in a superhuman agency responsible for creating the universe.

So, secular humanism is not a religion.

Secondly, the "Intelligent Design Movement" is not science. Science investigates and provides models of the natural world. Science NEITHER ASSUME A CREATOR NOR DOES IT DENY ONE.


Intelligent design assumes a designer, and therefore assumes a creator and is consequently NOT science. Intelligent design is creationism masquerading as science. It is pseudo-science.

Thirdly, as ID assumes a designer, it is theology, not science, and would be inappropriate in a science class. You should be lobbying for religious education classes if you want ID taught in public schools.

Religious education has been taught here in australian public schools for over 50 years. It isn't compulsory, but if parents want their children to have some religious training, they organise with the school for several priests, pastors, ministers etc from a variety of religions to come to the school and take up to an hour of religious instruction each week.

I suggest that this is what you do. It has been a raging success here in Australia and has bred a nation of non-believers, atheists, skeptics and agnostics.

So the sooner you start to indoctrinate children into religion in schools, the better I say!

4/10/06 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

beepbeep
I have two questions for you.

#1 Just for the record, do you believe in evolution?

#2 Do you believe in absolutes?

Daniel

5/10/06 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So all this debate comes from the validity of the term 'intelligent designer'? So in the end it all comes down to the definition of the English word 'intelligence.' This is as simple as declaring that if beepbeep's definition of the word is correct, than the term is invalid. However, if KA's definition is correct, than we can use it in this sense. The Hebrew name for God in this case is Elohim, which means The All-Powerful One, The Creator. Intelligent design, as some people want to teach it here in the U.S., is the idea that someone or something out there created or made everything. I subscribe to creation, not intelligent design. Evolution is in fact a religion. You have your view of how the world started (a big bang or som