Proof of ID (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, 20:22 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell

Testable hypothesis:
> > > 
> > > http://p2c.com/students/blogs/truthquest/2013/10/scientific-method-detect-intelligent-d... > > 
> > > This argument is why I believe in ID
> > 
> > Matt; "Hypothesis: An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."
> > 
> > Matt; Here's where this hypothesis fails. It is also equally possible for a mind to LIE. That is, given that a mind can "... produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity" it is also EQUALLY possible that a mind can PRETEND "...to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."
> 
> Possibilty is not fact. Equal probablilty is specious in your argument. We don't know the probabilities of lying or not lying, so this is a straw man argument. But we do know what minds can do and what cannot be produced without mind. Tell me how a code is produced by chance, or information is produced by chance. I'm not talking about observational information like it is cold today, but coordinated planning type of information.-No, its NOT a straw man argument, you're taking a disgustingly cheap cop-out. A key sign of intelligence is an ability to deceive. No known computer can lie--and this observation is key. For the hypothesis in that link to be more than philosophical, it REQUIRES YOU to accept that an intelligent designer would NEVER lie to you. Not once, not EVER. -Remember... I'm an agnostic. You're asking me to accept an argument for design. The particular argument for design that you've presented me with, is one that by implication, REQUIRES ME to accept that our designer WILL NOT LIE. -Why?-"An attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information or functional complexity."-Well, another attribute that is unique to minds is the ability to deceive. When's the last time your computer lied to you? -I'm an agnostic. I doubt, a priori, the existence of a creator, an intelligent mind. The hypothesis that is provided to me here, requires me to assume, a priori that a mind can never lie. It requires me to assume, that the intelligent mind that created the universe, never once pretended "to create significant levels of functional information or functional complexity." --> > 
> > Matt; For this hypothesis to be scientific, you are REQUIRED to make at least one assumption, an assumption that I say is so revolutionary and improbable, that the hypothesis can be rejected before you even make it to the testing phase. 
> > 
> > 1. The mind that created the universe never tells a lie. 
> > 
> > It is my intent, that my argument ends here. Because ID immediately fails without this assumption. (There are more, but this is the most damning.)
> 
> I don't follow the logic of this at all. Please explain it. Lying is not an issue. Explain how DNA has two levels of coding, as well as layers of other levels of control over the information it uses to create life. You can't, and neither can I, but chance can never do it. With your reasoning please fill the vacuum of the creation of this phenomenon. I will accept an answer of I don't know, which means you cannot reject out of hand other's answers.-First, we have to agree on the assumptions of naturalism. We have to assert that the world is -1.) Understandable
2.) Predictable-The extension of ID as a scientific argument, requires us to invoke yet another assumption of naturalism:-3.) Supernatural phenomenon at best cannot be differentiated from natural phenomenon.-We good here? I hope so. I haven't said anything controversial yet. -Here's where lying becomes important: -We're studying nature. God has the ability to break the rules of nature at will. So, for me to bite on the whole ID concept, you've got to convince me that God plays by the rules, and never performs a miracle. Because at any moment of time, if God DOES break a natural law, the most important assumption of naturalism topples: The universe is predictable. -And if the universe isn't predictable... then it immediately becomes less understandable, undermining the first assumption. And this isn't simply a trouble for naturalism, its a trouble for the entire enterprise of science, because science rests upon those two assumptions resolutely. That's the reason why that 3rd assumption was invented. -Since you're injecting intelligence into the formation of the universe, we also have to deal with the issue of trust: What if God doesn't want us to learn some fact about our universe? Isn't it true that he can abrogate the laws of nature to hinder our efforts? How could we ever know? -This ends the first prong of my challenge.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"