If There is no such thing as "Intelligent Design".

[Elijah John]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

Disclaimer: Please don't make this a thread about atheistic Evolution vs (six day) Biblical Creation, there are other possibilities and combinations to consider.

Some examples from a National Geographic article:

The science of biomimetics including,

-More efficient streamlining based on the structure of the boxfish. (Mercedes study)
-The thorny devil lizard, in effect drinking water through it's scales, actually whisking water via channels between it's scales to it's mouth. (for the irrigation of arid enviroments)
-burs inspired the design of velcro
-the waterproof properties of the lotus leaf is self-cleaning and has inspired "Lotosan" paint, said to better resist water and stains.
-sharkskin scales inhibit the growth and attachment of barnicles and is being studied for ways to treat the hull surfaces of navy ships to make them cleaner and faster.

And of course, the streamline shape of the Mako Shark in inspiring the Corvette. .

Of course there are many other examples of human invention being inspired by Natural (Intelligent?) design.

Granted, this is not proof of a creative Deity, (evidence, perhaps) but for debate, isn't it ironic that some very intelligent and creative people deny design in Nature while at the same time looking to it for inspiration?

And though National Geographic did not address Theistic or Deistic implications, are these examples evidence of at least a Deistic interpretation of the natural world?

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 49 by Waterfall]

Should I forget that I am living in a joyless universe - a universe that makes me sad? Its like having bad parents who hits me every morning. There is nothing joyfull about that. And I cant do anything about it. Thats the problem whit a universe. It's beyond my pay grade. But fortunately the universe is an open question, right? Why accept/chose bad parents if I dont have to?

You are not living in a joyless universe. The universe is to all intents and purposes irrelevant to your life. You are living somewhere on this planet and your circumstances are what may be making you sad. I don't understand what else you are saying or what you are trying to communicate. We don't get to choose if we are born or not and we don't get to choose our parents. So what point are you trying to make?

Thats your opinion.

A universe that keeps on hitting people is not a joyfull universe. Its a stupid universe. Thats my opinion.

You may say that I have chosen for my daughter. But I would say that she has chosen through me. I have ask the same question she would ask if she could - do I want to live in a joyless universe?

I think my point was that the universe is an open question. Is it good? Is it bad? Why choose bad if we dont have to?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 51 by Waterfall]

I think my point was that the universe is an open question. Is it good? Is it bad? Why choose bad if we dont have to?

I still do not understand what you are saying, but if we have a choice, what is it?

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 51 by Waterfall]

I think my point was that the universe is an open question. Is it good? Is it bad? Why choose bad if we dont have to?

I still do not understand what you are saying, but if we have a choice, what is it?

Do we have to say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? If the universe is doing the same thing over and over again then there is no end to the suffering and that I find depressing - to look at a universe like that. It just makes me sad.

The "only" thing I can do is point to this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_the_Light

Its a interesting book. But is it true? Time will tell.

I have so many questions.

Take Krishna consciousness. I have been trying to understand this philosophy and some questions came up:

1. What is the souls first incarnation?

2. How can Krishna create a universe whit living beings if only 1 soul falls?

Maybe they have some good answers. That would be great.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 53 by Waterfall]

Do we have to say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? If the universe is doing the same thing over and over again then there is no end to the suffering and that I find depressing - to look at a universe like that. It just makes me sad.

The "only" thing I can do is point to this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_the_Light

What is truly sad and depressing is that people continue to invest in wooist nonsense. Over and over we get charlatans presenting alleged communications from their version of the transcendental world with no more substantiation than their word.

The universe is not responsible for our suffering. The universe is just there. We are evolved animals with flaws that are not of our making. There are no souls or universal consciousness. If you have ever experienced a general anaesthetic you will have experienced death. The only difference is that with death you don't come back.

All of this discussion is not appropriate to this thread. There are others devoted to spiritualist woo and you should perhaps take it up there. William will show you the way.

[Bust Nak]

That wasn't what I was asking. What I was asking you was 'why does BB that does not have a beginning still need no explanation when the question of what was before the BB is still accepted as part of the generic theory of the BB?'

Because something that does not have a beginning gas no explanation.

The title does not give an answer as to your contradictory assertion that the BB existed forever before it came into existence as the event which began time.

Where on Earth are you getting this came into existence thing from?

Science and theology actually.
Perhaps you can stick to science in relation to your assertions? Your claim is that the BB has existed forever (as in a timeless state) up until the moment time began, when the theory itself says that the BB was an event which didn't exist until it happened and from that moment time began.

But that's not what the theory says.

Because (as I explained) it moves away from magical thinking. Don't you think that makes it better? Occam would.

But what you propose IS the magical thinking, so how exactly is it moving away from magical thinking?

Of course. Except in that science simply places that aside as unanswerable, whereas the atheist claims it as the answer. Atheism assumes one and rejects the other, whereas non atheist-based science does not.

That it is unanswerable is the answer though. These two stances are just two sides of the same coin.

The reason I linked you to Stephen's paper was to show you that even as an atheist scientist he does not claim the BB always existed. At least I could not find any such claim therein - perhaps you did and I missed it?

Yes, clearly:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 53 by Waterfall]

Do we have to say the universe is doing the same thing over and over again? If the universe is doing the same thing over and over again then there is no end to the suffering and that I find depressing - to look at a universe like that. It just makes me sad.

The "only" thing I can do is point to this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_the_Light

What is truly sad and depressing is that people continue to invest in wooist nonsense. Over and over we get charlatans presenting alleged communications from their version of the transcendental world with no more substantiation than their word.

The universe is not responsible for our suffering. The universe is just there. We are evolved animals with flaws that are not of our making. There are no souls or universal consciousness. If you have ever experienced a general anaesthetic you will have experienced death. The only difference is that with death you don't come back.

All of this discussion is not appropriate to this thread. There are others devoted to spiritualist woo and you should perhaps take it up there. William will show you the way.

Easy now

The book I was pointing to talks about intelligent design. That there has always been a design. This design was not created.

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a01.htm

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-ko01.htm

Maybe you should read the book before you complain about it. It is a interesting book. But is it true? Time will tell. The only problem seems to be the starsystem in it. You can read the book here if you want to. It will only cost you a little time. Maybe it will inspire you.

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/

But lets go back to your universe. Is it not because of this universe - the way it is - that we suffer? And that countles people will suffer? Is that not depressing? Universe...you make me depress...well...its not my fault...thats just the way I am...a depressing universe.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by Waterfall]

"In 1908 a medium was contacted by intelligences from the spiritual world. The reason was that the transcendental world wished to make humanity acquainted with some facts regarding their origin, their relation to God and the battle between Light and Darkness - good and evil. The wish was also to inform about the true teachings of Christ freed from centuries of additions and distortions, as well as making known some of the divine laws which apply to all living beings in the universe.

On the basis of numerous questions asked by participants during several séances held in the years 1913-14, the work entitled "Toward the Light!" appeared. The medium worked solely as an intuitive-inspirative instrument for the intelligences who manifested themselves, without deleting or adding anything to the given information."

Mediums are a dime a dozen. They are all charlatans. The universe is not a sad place. The sad places are the minds of people who buy into this sort of woo. It is all made up stuff and there are thousands of different versions of it. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Alexander had the right approach when he tackled the Gordian Knot, even if it is just fiction itself.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 56 by Waterfall]

"In 1908 a medium was contacted by intelligences from the spiritual world. The reason was that the transcendental world wished to make humanity acquainted with some facts regarding their origin, their relation to God and the battle between Light and Darkness - good and evil. The wish was also to inform about the true teachings of Christ freed from centuries of additions and distortions, as well as making known some of the divine laws which apply to all living beings in the universe.

On the basis of numerous questions asked by participants during several séances held in the years 1913-14, the work entitled "Toward the Light!" appeared. The medium worked solely as an intuitive-inspirative instrument for the intelligences who manifested themselves, without deleting or adding anything to the given information."

Mediums are a dime a dozen. They are all charlatans. The universe is not a sad place. The sad places are the minds of people who buy into this sort of woo. It is all made up stuff and there are thousands of different versions of it. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Alexander had the right approach when he tackled the Gordian Knot, even if it is just fiction itself.

I understand that you do not want to live in a depressing universe but is that up to you? Can you choose not to live in a depressing universe?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 20 by brunumb]

Good grief! The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

If that were the case, then one would have to suppose that these events must be related to different universes.

If not, then the BB theory is the idea that this universe had a beginning - the BB being the evidence of that event, and anything else which occurred after that event can be traced to the BB , so yes, everything which happens in this universe - including biological evolution - can be sourced to the BB event, so therein the BB does indeed have something (rather than nothing) to do with BE.

I wasn't going to wade into this, but I find myself wanting to make a point...

The scientific theory of evolution cannot be sourced to the Big Bang. Let's look at two different scenarios. Scenario 1 is the Big Bang is the source of the universe. Scenario 2 is that a god creature is the source of the universe. In either scenario, the universe has a source. The universe moves along, life appears, and begins evolving. Whether the universe came from a Big Bang or a god creature, the evidence that life has changed over time is the same. The theory of evolution doesn't require a particular source of the universe in order to be true and accurate...

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 58 by Waterfall]

It's worth pointing out that a universe that sounds depressing to you, might not be depressing to someone else. While I can't choose which universe I live in, I also don't need to choose, since the universe I live in isn't depressing.