25 Oct 21
@kellyjay saidScience reveals patterns and regularities, but patterns and regularities are not necessarily or always indicative of intentions. Patterns and regularities occur through the repeated operation of naturalistic laws. For example, throw salt grains onto a metal plate, then draw a cello bow across the edge of the plate; the salt grains will arrange themselves into patterns -- but there is no design or intentionality in it, just a mindless but regular pattern.
When speaking about life, is it designed, or is the cause a mindless process? Would this be a question about the truth of life, science, religion, or all of the above?
Evidence of intention would necessary to prove design.
25 Oct 21
@moonbus saidHow do you tell the difference between something mindlessly done or design? Patterns wouldn’t necessarily do that as you point out, a set of instructions for a specific functional complex task would you automatically assume mindless?
Science reveals patterns and regularities, but patterns and regularities are not necessarily or always indicative of intentions. Patterns and regularities occur through the repeated operation of naturalistic laws. For example, throw salt grains onto a metal plate, then draw a cello bow across the edge of the plate; the salt grains will arrange themselves into patterns -- but ...[text shortened]... n it, just a mindless but regular pattern.
Evidence of intention would necessary to prove design.
25 Oct 21
@bigdogg saidIf God proved to you he was real, would you not consider that a coercement?
None of this presents any problem whatsoever for free will.
My making choices according to who I am is the epitome of free will.
Would you still choose "not-God"?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Oct 21
5 edits
@moonbus saidThe criteria for intelligent design is more rigorous then just one thing. It is a combination of three things which all together are taken into account.
Science reveals patterns and regularities, but patterns and regularities are not necessarily or always indicative of intentions. Patterns and regularities occur through the repeated operation of naturalistic laws. For example, throw salt grains onto a metal plate, then draw a cello bow across the edge of the plate; the salt grains will arrange themselves into patterns -- but ...[text shortened]... n it, just a mindless but regular pattern.
Evidence of intention would necessary to prove design.
The "design inference" rigorously developed by Dr. William Dempski (mathematician, philosopher, theologian) considers a combination of matters which together occuring rule out other explanations.
The empirical strategy involves-
1.) contengency PLUS
2.) complexity PLUS
3.) specificity
Non-intelligent material causes are filtered out by these three combined eliminates explanations of necessity, pure chance, and nonintelligent causes.
The object under examination must not be contingent or explainable by natural law and by automatic processes. Ie like a salt crystal formation or snowflake formation.
In addition the object must show complexity showing it involves very low probability. The higher the complexity the lower the probability of chance being the origin.
Then finally specificity or specification . This means the patterns of improbability and contingent factors must be specified ahead of time and not fabricated after the fact.
Like if you draw a bulls eye around a dart that has been thrown against the side of a barn wall that is an arrangement made after the fact. If however the target's bull's eye was there before the throwing of the dart, that is NOT fabricating an effect after the fact.
Rigorous detection of intelligent causes involves all three aspects together.
I am gathering this information of a chapter on "DESIGN DETECTION" in Douglas Groothuis's book "Christian Apologetics". He is writing about William Dr. Dempski's Design Inference filtering method for eliminating natural unintelligent causes.
25 Oct 21
@suzianne saidI would not consider the mere change of belief to be coercion.
If God proved to you he was real, would you not consider that a coercement?
Would you still choose "not-God"?
Coercion comes if God threatens punishment for doing, or not, certain things.
Coercion lessens freedom, but not free will.
26 Oct 21
@bigdogg saidWould you consider warning labels that tell you something is toxic because it warns you against drinking it when you find it appealing?
I would not consider the mere change of belief to be coercion.
Coercion comes if God threatens punishment for doing, or not, certain things.
Coercion lessens freedom, but not free will.
26 Oct 21
1 edit
@kellyjay saidConsider? That's easy. Yes.
Would you consider warning labels that tell you something is toxic because it warns you against drinking it when you find it appealing?
In Europe, the packs of cigarettes have graphic pictures of rotten lungs on them, or so I've heard. People smoke them anyway.
Examples like this only underline the point that coercion doesn't remove freedom of will. People are stubborn, and often do what they want anyway.
In the Bible, didn't Satan rebel against God, despite knowing him well? He must have known he could not possibly win, and yet he still rebelled. By the arguments given in this thread, he should not have possessed sufficient free will to do so.
26 Oct 21
@bigdogg saidDoing something you know is wrong, despite the consequences, is acting with free will; doing something because you have no choice in the matter is not; one is by will, the other is a necessity will is not required. Water freezing into ice is not an act of will; it is necessary due to conditions that force it. Doing something despite the consequences because you think it is the right thing to do even if there are dire consequences is acting with one's will. Liking blue over the color of green isn't acting with a will; it states a preference; choosing to be kind over hateful is an act of will. The world is full of coercion; take the shot or lose your job, pay your taxes or go to jail, go the speed limit or pay the fine; murder, you can die or go to jail. Even if man or God says, this good do this, or this is bad, don't do it; that is for a cause more times than not; what can be debatable is it for a good cause or a bad one.
Consider? That's easy. Yes.
In Europe, the packs of cigarettes have graphic pictures of rotten lungs on them, or so I've heard. People smoke them anyway.
Examples like this only underline the point that coercion doesn't remove freedom of will. People are stubborn, and often do what they want anyway.
In the Bible, didn't Satan rebel against God, despite knowing him we ...[text shortened]... . By the arguments given in this thread, he should not have possessed sufficient free will to do so.