The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[Diamond]

Thanks for the links, Patrick.

Cordially,

[general_re]

#6

The person in the picture should give you some sense of scale for the featured structure...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I said: I take hope in the passages in Romans and John which speak of God's mercy to those who didn't know better. Because of those passages, I wonder if willfulness will factor in the judgment somehow.

You said: I'm not aware of this; would like to see those references. I am aware of Romans 2:15,16, which to me seems to imply that the conscience of some will demonstrate that they acted in humble faith, regarding what little knowledge of God they had (being submitted to it in their hearts).

Here are the passages I was remembering, from John and Romans:

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. – John 15:22-24

(For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) - Romans 2:13-15

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. – Romans 4:15

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. – Romans 5:13

I take all of this to mean that people who have heard of Christ will be judged by that standard, people who have not heard of Christ but have heard of the Mosaic law, will be judged by that standard and that people who have heard of neither will either be judged by the law written in their own heart or will be excused (have a cloak for their sin.)

Earlier still in Romans, without 'cheating' and looking now, I believe we have mention of creation itself telling us of God, which lo and behold, brings my face back to the subject of this thread!

When I meditate on the creation, it always strikes me that the objects of creation do what they are compelled to do: waves/forces, particles, galaxies, stars, winds, water, plants, animals – etc. They are driven by physical laws, environment and their own nature. Out of everything in the physical realm, man seems singularly prone to act willfully, sometimes self-serving and sometimes self-sacrificing. It is disturbing to imagine a physical realm where all plants and animals could act so willfully…

Here is a very interesting pdf document where the big bang is explored as proof of the existence of God.

[Diamond]

Man, I hope that's not a dung heap.

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

Updated links:

Test object 1. Diamond's answer in post 7.
Test object 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62.
Test object 3. Answer at post 111 and 124.
Test object 4. Answer at 166 and 174.
Test object 5. Answer at 181.
Test object 6. Answer at _________.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! I agree with you and repeat your summation:

Science has gone as far as the Materialistic paradigm will take it (and then some!) and will continue to chase its tail so long as its mind remains closed.

[general_re]

It is not a dung heap. ;)

It is, however, composed of bits of earth and rock held together by an adhesive...

[unspun]

I see. You're right. Certainly a holistic 'definintion' of "thought" agrees. And I posted a couple other relevant items last night. What might it be if the information in our thoughts does not come from even a protraction or leap of our thoughts, nor from 'material' experience --nor from some kind of imbedded instinct? (I mean, you know... if such a thing could actually happen, what might it be? ;-)

[PatrickHenry]

It is, however, composed of bits of earth and rock held together by an adhesive...

So is the Washington Monument. So is the Empire State Building. So are the Rockey Mountains. Thanks for the helpful hint.

[js1138]

Putting a lot of trust on the neural science of 1966 is like depending on the laser technology of 1966.

[balrog666]

I would have to say that, if it happens, and we don't know where it comes from, then I would say that we don't know where it comes from. ;^)

Now if you then lead into speculation about gods, demons, the tooth fairy, or various visitors from some etherial plane of existence, then, as with betty boop's discussions of the immaterial aspects of consciousness, I simply see no way to discuss it because we cannot define any mutually meaningful terms.

[betty boop]

Alamo-Girl, thank you so much for the information here. I've downloaded, printed, and bound the PDF on the cosmological constant. Have only glossed the first couple pages thus far, but it looks fascinating. Hope to get a chance to read it through very soon. Thank you so much for the link!

[betty boop]

Science has gone as far as the Materialistic paradigm will take it (and then some!) and will continue to chase its tail so long as its mind remains closed.

Amen to that, Phaedrus! I wonder why it is so difficult to find "a common language" to express this insight in a manner that is "meaningful" to balrog666. He thinks I've been talking about angels and tooth fairies, apparently. But what I'm talking about should be obvious to any person who has studied the operations of his own consciousness. Which is: The thinker, the "observer," the self is not a material object. Some of the most obvious things, oddly enough, seem to be the most difficult to discern.

As Heraclitus put it, "Nature loves to hide." [Memo to unspun: Yes, God is subtle....]

I was thinking of posting a "thought experiment" that the philosopher Eric Voegelin conducted back in 1960. It's called "The Moving Soul." It takes its premises from physics, particularly general relativity. Maybe this might establish the "common language" that we continue to lack. Plus it's a real "dusey!" Got to go limber up my typing fingers....

[unspun]

Thanks for devotion applied in this response, A-G.

(BTW, is Romans 2:16 describing when the accusing and excusing happens, or just when Jesus judges it? ;-)

I track with you. So, it seems here that the extremity of extended mercy applied for the excuse of the most ignorant heart would be understood by answering the questions of what a cloak is and what it will do for one, in God's intently loving eyes, eh? But while I don't know the language John 15:22 is written in, I see "cloak" simply translated "excuse" in NIV, NASB, Amp., which would make my prior statement circular. Hmm.

So, I'm left to read a simpler v22 in two contexts: the first being the context of all the other Scripture, and the second being the context of Jesus' conversation with his hearers. In the first context, I'll be informed the what is critical is our response to God's revelation. In the second context, I'll be informed that the sin Jesus most refers to here is choosing to hate Jesus (and His disciples along with Him) -- chosing to be offended by God, instead of taking to heart that He tells them they are sinners in need of mercy.

So when Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin." I tend to think that, thoroughgoing Person that Jesus is, He is referring to the whole revelation that Jesus always has been to man. Afterall, He was The Word breathed by God, even before The Word got to Mary for flesh and "it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding" (Job 32:8) whenever in history, a man's feet are on the earth (and until his feet become just a part of the earth).

So yeah, no mystery, it seems to me, when it comes to man; his willing response of accepting God's truth about Himself (and himself) is required, however Jesus is witnessed (which varies from person to person, though He does not).

PEOPLE, ACCEPT: THAT GOD IS GOD, AND YOU AREN'T; THAT HE IS GOOD, AND YOU AREN'T; THAT HE HAS CHOSEN A MATERIAL WAY TO RECOVER YOU, AND YOU ARE.

And all this will culminate, "on the day when, according to my good news, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:16) having already made God no secret to men.

[unspun]

While very eager to read bb's exercise in lingusitic commonality and hoping to have time to read and understand A-G's literature (and even to realistically comprehend Diamond's three criteria) let me then ask you this:

What if a thought came to you that it would be dishonest for you to say is from your own knowledge, and it informed you of demonstrable facts that you would not have any other way of knowing, and it also purported its source to you?

[balrog666]

I wonder why it is so difficult to find "a common language" to express this insight in a manner that is "meaningful" to balrog666. He thinks I've been talking about angels and tooth fairies, apparently.

No, that was just an insightful comparison.;^)

To restate the idea, I think that subjective personal experiences like finding (a) faith, seeing a ufo, having a mystical dream, having a drug induced hallucination, or even having a encounter with a ghost or the tooth fairy do not lend themselves to objective examination after the fact and, without evidence, there is no real basis or purpose to any discussion of same.

[PatrickHenry]

Permit me to offer to Diamond, in connection with his not-yet-posted response to object #6 (which can be seen at post 202), what he said in connection with object #5:

Same answer as #4. Design. For the pretty much the same reasons. The pattern is contingent, that is, it indicates a choice of choosing certain things and ruling out others, and the pattern is highly improbable by chance.
181 posted on 03/07/2003 2:45 PM EST by Diamond

I really am interested to see if a consistent method employing consistent criteria can distinguish between natural and designed objects.

[balrog666]

What if a thought came to you that it would be dishonest for you to say is from your own knowledge, and it informed you of demonstrable facts that you would not have any other way of knowing, and it also purported its source to you?

That's quite a hypothetical situation that you posit, with "a thought I must conclude is from outside my own brain", with "demonstratable facts", and "a purported source". I suppose I could well waffle about "the "thought" itself, the "facts", the "demonstratable to whom" idea and the "source" until you toughen it up some more but, with the presumption within the question itself, there's little point.

Would I conclude Goddidit? Satan? The Trickster Coyote? No, no, and no.
Would I conclude I was going insane and ask for medication? No.
Would I conclude there was a person or alien with projective telepathic abilities hanging around warping my thoughts for some unknown purpose? Probably not.
Do I have a definitive answer to this hypothetical question? No.
Does that bother me? No.

[unspun]

Yes! It's good not to conclude. I tend to find it's good to be compelled.

[Dataman]

Putting a lot of trust on the neural science of 1966 is like depending on the laser technology of 1966.

Nice piece of reasoning there, JS. Let's apply that to the much older, primitive and debunked theory of Darwin:

Putting a lot of trust on the natural science of 1859 is like depending on the wagon wheel technology of 1859.