Intelligent Design vs. Free Will

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, it is. I am not a subscriber to organized religion so me personal viewpoint on God is not exactly going to meet many people's expectations with the topics we are discussing.

intelligent design is notoriously flexible to meet (or skirt) the challenges of an... evolving investigation.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
Gotta say I've never heard of intelligent design being associated with destiny. I think the OP has misunderstood the implications of ID. Have I predetermined the future of the sea monkeys I just put in the water?

I feed brine shrimp to some of my fish. Does that make me the devil? lol

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not an intelligent designer. In fact, my designer is not that smart at all.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I feed brine shrimp to some of my fish. Does that make me the devil? lol

No, the horns and tail do.

If God can't interact then how's he gonna answer any prayers? And if he does answer prayers then he's going to have to account for all the effects it will have on the future, it will create a cascade effect of consequences that he must consider.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I feed brine shrimp to some of my fish. Does that make me the devil? lol

No, the horns and tail do.

I thought my halo covered my horns and my tail is normally tucked in.

Time for a re-adjust!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
...and my tail is normally tucked in.

Yeah, like some sort of Satanic Buffalo Bill.

originally posted by: flyingfish
If God can't interact then how's he gonna answer any prayers? And if he does answer prayers then he's going to have to account for all the effects it will have on the future, it will create a cascade effect of consequences that he must consider.

No one says God can't interact, but who says God wants to interact?

a reply to: TerryDon79
Simply put, evil personified.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: TerryDon79
Simply put, evil personified.

Thank you

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

You cannot have ID without destiny...unless you want to ignore the divinity of the creator?

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

You cannot have ID without destiny...unless you want to ignore the divinity of the creator?

Yes, you can.

We have shown you already that the intelligent designer doesn't need to interact after creating the designed.

a reply to: polyath

In intelligent design, there is a conscious creative force (God, Vishnu, whatever)

This as opposed to just the random fluctuation of countless sub-atomic particles and wave functions and all the rest of that quantum stuff somehow in it's fluctuating and bubbling has managed to interact in such a way as all of this has eventually come about in a way that we, as part of all that randomness seem to think we can make sense of.

that knows everything that will happen. Indeed, everything happens the way it was designed.

Here, somehow you have used a very large assumption that for me severely limits our investigation into the question posed.
Yes, as you put it here, I can see now way for there to be any free will at all, for us, for the Cosmic Captains of Cassiopeia or indeed for this hypothetical God himself. If this is the definition of a creator, than we are stuck as you say

Yet by going with an opposing position to a 'created' universe, the idea of that random existence, also for me offers little hope of free will. As I look out at the cosmos I find little, no, make that zero reason to even assume that any of it, myself included has free will.

But you continue and conclude that

Realize that the universe wasn't designed, but that when there are infinite possible scenarios - our configuration was bound to happen sometime.

So as you have concluded that the universe was not created, just where do you get the idea that we have free will. Do you see it in the stars? The clock work solar system? Do you see it in the animal kingdom? In our pets? I do not. So where do you think you see free will. In humans? If the previous thread on free will you mentioned was the one where cognitive scientists have recently demonstrated that there is no free will then I wonder just where you get the idea that we do if not from just the historical assumption that we do and that that was granted by the very got you deny?

For me, there is no greater question then this of free will or no free will. The scenario I am currently operating under is this. That this IS a created universe, but one in which all the natural laws, as we have come to find them, and all the quantum laws, as we have come to think of them and all the cosmic laws as we are finding them to be, hold sway. And in this created universe the existence of free will is not a natural part. I do not believe that free will is a gift, or a freedom granted by god. However, I do think that we have been provided this universe into which we might manage to develop it.

I think that it is ours to develop. And so far, we have developed very little of it. To me, free will is the goal of this creation and that it cannot be created by god, but only by those living within it's confines. That this is the boiling pot from which free will may be germinated. I think it is up to me to develop free will, and you to develop free will. If we think we have it as a gift from god, we will not try to develop it ourselves. Me personally will settle for a hand full of examples of my own free will to make me a happy man. And make God a happy God.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: flyingfish
If God can't interact then how's he gonna answer any prayers? And if he does answer prayers then he's going to have to account for all the effects it will have on the future, it will create a cascade effect of consequences that he must consider.

No one says God can't interact, but who says God wants to interact?

Well.. if he can't, won't or doesn't want to, then what good is he?
All those wasted prayers, no wonder millions starve to death.

a reply to: polyath

I'm with Augustus and Terry on this. Nothing about "intelligent design" precludes the possibility of variables, i.e. choices... free will.

Would you suggest that computers are not "intelligently designed?" Because computers are designed with variables. If I press one key, the computer performs one function... if I press another key, it performs another function... and pressing a combination of keys, it performs other functions. I have choices, and the computer responds according to my choice. Much like life and free will. If I make one choice, there is one outcome... If I make another choice, there is another outcome.

And, of course, the outcomes will also be influenced by other variables; i.e., the choices of others. If I choose to take one road over another, and someone else chooses to run a red light on a road crossing my road of choice, that can and will affect my outcome as well. While our Creator may not/does not determine what choice I will make, our Creator can know what choices I am likely to make based on various factors, as well as the outcomes of the choices I make.

For whatever reason you have chosen to eliminate the variable of free will from your definition of intelligent design, that is your choice based on your limited understanding of life and creation -- and your own arrogance, incorrectly believing that your definition -- your choice -- is the only possible definition.

Oh that pesky free will!!!

a reply to: TerryDon79

Again, incorrect. What you have done is claim it to be a possibility. You have not, however, shown your claim to be true.

If you think it is possible to be omniscient while being ignorant to the effects of what one makes, you are mistaken. If you think it is possible to be omnipotent without being the cause of everything, you are mistaken. And if you think it is possible for one to be omnipresent without taking part in everything...you are mistaken.

Omnipresence does not simply mean standing there next to you. It means present in every single quark and gluon. By definition, omnipresence means taking a part in everything.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: flyingfish
If God can't interact then how's he gonna answer any prayers? And if he does answer prayers then he's going to have to account for all the effects it will have on the future, it will create a cascade effect of consequences that he must consider.

No one says God can't interact, but who says God wants to interact?

Well.. if he can't, won't or doesn't want to, then what good is he?
All those wasted prayers, no wonder millions starve to death.

Like I've said, there's plenty of possibilities.

God could simply be observing to see what mistakes are made till the end. After the end he created universe beta v0.02 with slight differences and see what mistakes are made then. After God has done enough to limit mistakes he then releases the full version v1.00.

Or, God might just like watching.

Or, God might be interacting.

Or, God might be every animal and keeps an eye on things that way.

Or none of the above.

Who can say what God (if God exists) thinks?

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

Again, incorrect. What you have done is claim it to be a possibility. You have not, however, shown your claim to be true.

isnt that exactly what you've done with the op and replies? Just shown its a possibility and not a fact?

If you think it is possible to be omniscient while being ignorant to the effects of what one makes, you are mistaken. If you think it is possible to be omnipotent without being the cause of everything, you are mistaken. And if you think it is possible for one to be omnipresent without taking part in everything...you are mistaken.

why? You can't prove me right or wrong and you can't do the same with yourself. All you can do is show opinion. opinion=/=fact

Omnipresence does not simply mean standing there next to you. It means present in every single quark and gluon. By definition, omnipresence means taking a part in everything.

again, another opinion.

a reply to: Boadicea

Would you suggest that computers are not "intelligently designed?"

Would you suggest that humans are God and that when we discuss intelligent design, we should hold the creator to the limitations of humans?

If I choose to take one road over another, and someone else chooses to run a red light on a road crossing my road of choice, that can and will affect my outcome as well.

You do not have control over another person's actions. If you were the creator, this would mean you chose to take that road KNOWING someone would run that red light. See the difference?

While our Creator may not/does not determine what choice I will make

If this were true, then it would mean that the creator either a). has no plan or b). can have its plans disrupted...I'll let you ponder the implications of both.

For whatever reason you have chosen to eliminate the variable of free will from your definition of intelligent design

No, I did not eliminate it from the definition. If you follow the definition of intelligent design, the only rational conclusion is that free will does not exist.

based on your limited understanding of life and creation

No, it's based on my ability to read what intelligent design entails and come to logical conclusions rather than try to make up false scenarios so I don't have to give up preconceived notions.

incorrectly believing that your definition -- your choice -- is the only possible definition.

It isn't my definition of intelligent design upon which the OP was based. If you can't see that, I suggest you go read up on intelligent design a bit more. Curiously, how many definitions of intelligent design would you like to have?

For at least the third time in this thread, I will reiterate that the idea of a God that stands back is known as "Deism."

Oh that pesky free will!!!

Not at all. Free will exists, because God doesn't. Or vice versa, I suppose - but I'd rather not entertain that thought.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Do you apply critical thinking to any of your posts? This is exactly what you are doing:

Me: 2+2=4
You: No, it isn't.
Me: Giving a demonstration.
You: You didn't prove anything.

If you are going to be willfully ignorant and somehow not understand the concept that being everywhere means taking part in everything, further discussion with you is pointless. And don't take this as a "victory." It's more that I feel I'm talking to a brick wall.