A remote Island

[rowen]

You wake up in the middle of the Pacific.

You find wrapped bread on a table

Did some entity put the bread there at one stage?

Yes or No

[rowen]

Here's a simple category for you to deny then: Intention. Was the creation intentional or not? You appear to assume at least this much while I find it woefully lacking in support.

Ultimately some form of selection takes place when we consider an outcome in relation to other possibilities. The theist's assumption is that selection must always be traceable back to mind. I see no support for this broad assumption.

For example, a wonderful beach close to where I live has an interesting distribution of pebbles:

The pebbles are graded in size from fist-sized near Portland to pea-sized at Bridport.

I see a cause originating from a superior "mind" with an "intention" on a human level, but these are just words we use to describe God. I do not even see how we can imbue in a philosophical level the words intent onto God, which is a human process. So we use words like will of God, intent of God, etc to express what we see from God, but I do not see God on that low level. That is the only way God can really be described by human beings.

[rowen]

I lose.
But you still don't show why your point proves a God, beauty in the eye and

I have been thinking about this a great deal lately, about how the forms we see in nature, and how they cannot be trumpeted by our human minds.

I see an essence of superiority, of majesty, for if our intelligence cannot trump it, would there not be a superior intelligence? As surely there is infinite variety of form, but the best forms are what we see

[QED]

I see an essence of superiority, of majesty, for if our intelligence cannot trump it, would there not be a superior intelligence? As surely there is infinite variety of form, but the best forms are what we see

There is an annual award (the “HUMIES� AWARDS) for Genetic Algorithms (yes, computer programs written by intelligent programmers!) displaying better than human intelligence at solving various problems. What's going on here is that the organising power and natural intelligence of natural selection is being modelled and harnessed to solve problems that defy brute-force application of human intelligence. This superiority is present in nature, in logic and because we can identify and tap into it, we (those who are familiar with the tricks) do not assume that it must take brute-force style intelligence to produce all the neat stuff we see around us.

[Goat]

I lose.
But you still don't show why your point proves a God, beauty in the eye and

I have been thinking about this a great deal lately, about how the forms we see in nature, and how they cannot be trumpeted by our human minds.

I see an essence of superiority, of majesty, for if our intelligence cannot trump it, would there not be a superior intelligence? As surely there is infinite variety of form, but the best forms are what we see

You see that. Can you prove it, or is it entirely subjective and in your own mind. That sounds like the logical fallacy of 'arguement from ignorance' or 'personal incredibilty' to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

I lose.
But you still don't show why your point proves a God, beauty in the eye and

I have been thinking about this a great deal lately, about how the forms we see in nature, and how they cannot be trumpeted by our human minds.

I see an essence of superiority, of majesty, for if our intelligence cannot trump it, would there not be a superior intelligence? As surely there is infinite variety of form, but the best forms are what we see

While I too share your wonder at the natural world, I see no evidence to suggest it is the result of a creator being.

I don't think it too great a stretch to say that humans are the most intelligent creatures we know of (for good and bad). In my opinion, no animal can trump sending several of its own to the moon. Other than your own amazement at the natural world, what supporting evidence requires us to then make the leap to an intelligent designer? I see yours as an argument from incredulity. Again, I share your 'incredulous' wonderment of the natural world, but this is not proof of a superior intelligence. Really I think it just points to a lack of intelligence on our part.

Where you and I both are unable to fathom just how incredibly awesome this world is, you seem to have a desire to find an intelligence behind it. I find no reason not to think 'what we see is what we get'. What evidence other than our admitted 'incredulity' do we have to say this intelligent creator exists?

[bernee51]

I have been thinking about this a great deal lately, about how the forms we see in nature, and how they cannot be trumpeted by our human minds.

I see an essence of superiority, of majesty, for if our intelligence cannot trump it, would there not be a superior intelligence? As surely there is infinite variety of form, but the best forms are what we see

While I too share your wonder at the natural world, I see no evidence to suggest it is the result of a creator being.

I don't think it too great a stretch to say that humans are the most intelligent creatures we know of (for good and bad). In my opinion, no animal can trump sending several of its own to the moon. Other than your own amazement at the natural world, what supporting evidence requires us to then make the leap to an intelligent designer? I see yours as an argument from incredulity. Again, I share your 'incredulous' wonderment of the natural world, but this is not proof of a superior intelligence. Really I think it just points to a lack of intelligence on our part.

Where you and I both are unable to fathom just how incredibly awesome this world is, you seem to have a desire to find an intelligence behind it. I find no reason not to think 'what we see is what we get'. What evidence other than our admitted 'incredulity' do we have to say this intelligent creator exists?

Not so much a lack of intelligence – perhaps a lack of understanding.

I am of the growing belief that 'what we see is what we get’ is not the end of the story. Up until the arrival of reflective consciousness (Man) evolution had been hit or miss, trial and error – definitely ‘what you saw is what you got’. The ‘in turning’ in the form of reflectivity brings with it the ability to bring intention to evolution.

This has spread across the entire gamut of human influence. Knowledge of the nuclear has created new elements. The effects of humanity, both deliberate and unconscious on the biosphere are without question. The growth of a ‘global mind’ – which began as soon as man started meaningful communication – has grown astronomically with the connectivity to which we now have access.

At the level of the individual consciousness it would seem we are in a prime position to bring intention to its evolution. By use of its own nature of reflectivity we can move beyond the limitations of reactivity into a growth guided by awareness.

[Solon]

Arguments from Logical Necessity


Argument from Design

Unfortunately I have had a minor personal issue crop up this weekend. I will address your arguments when I have time. Please do not think I am ignoring you, I just have more pressing matters at the moment.