Jump to content

King Follet Discourses


Tarski

Recommended Posts

Lets get our story straight shall we?

I see quite a few LDS (such as Changed) vigorously endorsing intelligent design.

But let's slow down and notice something important.

First, to "design" is not the same as copy or manufacture and certainly not the same as procreate.

Design means to some up with an original and intelligent blueprint for an artifact. The design shows the original intentions of the designer and is not simply taken off the shelf or copied or imitated from something already in existence.

It is asserted that life is obviously a very clever design of an intelligent agent usually taken to be God. At the top of the list is the human form in all its beauty and complexity.

But in post King-Follet Mormon theology, we find that God did not design or create any of these wonders. Indeed, he is a procreator, and did not design me any more than my father did. Indeed, not only did he not invent the human body, he has such a body himself and so did his father before him ad infinitum. The notions of a tree, or a planet, a bird or a dog were not designed by the Mormon God who presumably started out as a mortal surrounded by such things.

In this view, all of the complexity which appears designed is actually simply an eternally repeating pattern of natural structure without any origin in some creative act.

The Mormon God seems to have not designed anything at all of much significance and the complex structures of life such as the human body are not designed at all, not by God, not by nature, and not by any previous diety.

So, why are LDS like Changed and others here so keen on seeing design in nature?

Intelligent design opposes Mormon theology. (shocking but true)

If nature is obviously designed, then traditional Mormon theology is obviously false. You can't have it both ways despite the attempt to do just that in the convoluted, multi-dimensional, time warping, paradoxical and self-contradictory theories of few people like MfB.

Link to comment

Good points. I think LDS who latch on to ID theology do so for many reasons. Perhaps it's out of some desire for a closer kinship with those in the evangelical movement. Perhaps they (wrongly) associate evolution with atheism and believe that by taking a stand against science they're taking a stand for God. And of course, most of them really aren't familiar with the science of evolution, and the first time they take a close look at it it's through the distorted, funhouse mirror of the Discovery Institute.

Link to comment

I don't see the contradiction. Mormons believe that there is an eternal pattern. That doesn't mean that the pattern is automatic or without instigation. God designs our universe after the eternal pattern of things. Even if the concept of a humanoid body predates God, that doesn't negate the fact that God designed and propelled our being into existence, even if the concept was not original to him.

Is the problem really just some nitpicking over the word 'design'?

Link to comment

I don't see the contradiction. Mormons believe that there is an eternal pattern. That doesn't mean that the pattern is automatic or without instigation. God designs our universe after the eternal pattern of things. Even if the concept of a humanoid body predates God, that doesn't negate the fact that God designed and propelled our being into existence, even if the concept was not original to him.

Is the problem really just some nitpicking over the word 'design'?

If the design predates the Godhood of God, then God can't be said to have designed it.

Link to comment

If the design predates the Godhood of God, then God can't be said to have designed it.

I wasn't aware ID mandated that God designed the pattern, just that he designed our universe.

Does the fact that God designed our universe and its lifeforms after a preexisting pattern negate the fact that he designed it?v

Link to comment

I don't see the contradiction. Mormons believe that there is an eternal pattern. That doesn't mean that the pattern is automatic or without instigation. God designs our universe after the eternal pattern of things.

That's not design at all. ID folks claim to see the intelligent and creative imprint of a super intelligent God in the structure of biological organisms because they are so clever. Just who was clever if God just copied a pattern created by no one? Come on now!

Link to comment

I wasn't aware ID mandated that God designed the pattern, just that he designed our universe.

Does the fact that God designed our universe and its lifeforms after a preexisting pattern negate the fact that he designed it?v

It's like you guys don't even get the point of ID. The design is supposed to be the result of intelligence. The Mormon God did not use his intelligence to think up the very notion of, or structure of, or design of trees, humans, planets and so on. These had always exist and no one thought up the design.

Link to comment

I wasn't aware ID mandated that God designed the pattern, just that he designed our universe.

Does the fact that God designed our universe and its lifeforms after a preexisting pattern negate the fact that he designed it?v

What you are describing is not design. A designer does not copy older designs - he creates new ones.

Link to comment

That's not design at all. ID folks claim to see the intelligent and creative imprint of a super intelligent God in the structure of biological organisms because they are so clever. Just who was clever if God just copied a pattern created by no one? Come on now!

You can't design something after the pattern of something else?

You're right that proponents of ID point to the complexity of life as evidence of a creative deity. This agrees perfectly with the Mormon idea of a preexisting divine pattern for existence. The complexity of our universe does necessitate a designer (our God), but it doesn't necessitate that the design was original to him. Human lifeforms, although part of an eternal pattern, do not spring into existence by themselves. The eternal pattern only persists if there's a designer to design a universe after the pattern.

There is a divine designer, our God, who crafted everything after the eternal pattern (i.e., he designed it). I think that can safely be considered intelligent design.

Link to comment

Just think, if I were to repent and eventual become a God, would someone on one of my created worlds look in wonder at the human body and realize that I, their God, (resurrected Tarski) designed the human body?????

Even if I ever become a God I can never be given credit for the design of humans, trees or life in general. And so since our God came alone the same way (once mortal) so we can't call him a designer either.

It's really quite simple.

You guys aren't looking in wonder at biological complexity and saying to yourself. "wow, that's so complicated, some intelligence must have copied it from a pre-existing model!" How silly.

Link to comment

What you are describing is not design. A designer does not copy older designs - he creates new ones.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at definitions for the word 'design'.

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.

2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.

3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.

4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.

5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

Which of these definitions requires that the design not incorporate any preexisting ideas, functions, or parts?

Link to comment

You can't design something after the pattern of something else?

You're right that proponents of ID point to the complexity of life as evidence of a creative deity. This agrees perfectly with the Mormon idea of a preexisting divine pattern for existence. The complexity of our universe does necessitate a designer (our God), but it doesn't necessitate that the design was original to him. Human lifeforms, although part of an eternal pattern, do not spring into existence by themselves. The eternal pattern only persists if there's a designer to design a universe after the pattern.

There is a divine designer, our God, who crafted everything after the eternal pattern (i.e., he designed it). I think that can safely be considered intelligent design.

No it can't! LOL

What in the world are you talking about. This is nonsense.

Link to comment
You guys aren't looking in wonder at biological complexity and saying to yourself. "wow, that's so complicated, some intelligence must have copied it from a pre-existing model!" How silly.

No, you're probably saying that it's so complicated that it requires it to have been created by some intelligence. From what I've read, that's the premise given by most proponents of ID.

Which has no bearing on whether the idea was original to that intelligence or not.

Link to comment

Each human life, each plant, each planet, each star is unique - not a copy of something else, I would call that creative. Each leaf on each tree is unique - look at the veins, fingerprints - these are all unique.... humans mass produce things that are not unique, God creates things that are not mere copies.

Unique = creatively designed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Intelligences, or spirits, are eternal - but without God we had no way to progress. Progression required that we:

1. attain physical bodies (something that we could not do on our own)

2. learn good/evil on earth, be tested,

3. the atonement

etc. etc. etc.

comes back to the simplistic notion of Newton's 1st law -

object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force...

I see God as providing that outside force which allows us to progress, instead of being trapped in an unchanging, untransfored state.

transform is perhaps a better word than create - but God certainly transforms what exists into unque, non-copied, beautiful entities.

We're not "carbon copies"... and that in and of itself, is a miracle.

Link to comment

Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at definitions for the word 'design'.

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.

2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.

3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.

4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.

5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

Which of these definitions requires that the design not incorporate any preexisting ideas, functions, or parts?

All of them.

Link to comment

You can't design something after the pattern of something else?

You're right that proponents of ID point to the complexity of life as evidence of a creative deity. This agrees perfectly with the Mormon idea of a preexisting divine pattern for existence. The complexity of our universe does necessitate a designer (our God), but it doesn't necessitate that the design was original to him. Human lifeforms, although part of an eternal pattern, do not spring into existence by themselves. The eternal pattern only persists if there's a designer to design a universe after the pattern.

There is a divine designer, our God, who crafted everything after the eternal pattern (i.e., he designed it). I think that can safely be considered intelligent design.

We know from the first vision that God looks exactly like us. Ergo, the human design did not originate with God at all.

Link to comment

Each human life, each plant, each planet, each star is unique - not a copy of something else, I would call that creative. Each leaf on each tree is unique - look at the veins, fingerprints - these are all unique.... humans mass produce things that are not unique, God creates things that are not mere copies.

Unique = creatively designed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Intelligences, or spirits, are eternal - but without God we had no way to progress. Progression required that we:

1. attain physical bodies (something that we could not do on our own)

2. learn good/evil on earth, be tested,

3. the atonement

etc. etc. etc.

comes back to the simplistic notion of Newton's 1st law -

object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force...

I see God as providing that outside force which allows us to progress, instead of being trapped in an unchanging, untransfored state.

transform is perhaps a better word than create - but God certainly transforms what exists into unque, non-copied, beautiful entities.

We're not "carbon copies"... and that in and of itself, is a miracle.

The small uniqueness of each person is due to the variances created by sexual reproduction - you have half your father's and half your mother's genes. I know of no doctrine that states the God creates each individual from scratch. Sexual reproduction takes care of that.

Link to comment

OK, for anyone who has a logical bone in their body this analogy should make the point.

Suppose that the universe was infinite and that there were an infinite number of habitable planets and that there always were such planets.

Now imagine that humans and their favorite plants and animals only come from other humans and plants and animals of the same kind by biological reproduction and no other way. These have always existed in this universe we are imagining. They live on a planet until using up the resources of one planet they move to the next using technology past down from an infinite past 9also no beginning to this technology). There was never any beginning to this.

In this imaginary scenario, there is no God, just some humans barely smart enough to reproduce and build the spaceship in time to move to the next planet.

No God at all.

Now, a certain one of these humans named Behe comes along and says "hey! look how well designed these bodies are? Who thought this up in the first place? It must have been a a great intelligence"

Well, he would be wrong and yet there is no contradiction if you are willing to countenance an endless chain of procreation and copying.

So, if we are willing to countenance an endless chain of procreation and copying, then the leap from observed complexity to the presumption of a designer is spurious.

Of course, Mormonism DOES countenance an endless chain of procreation and copying with no original design.

Please tell me someone gets this simple point about ID and Mormonism.

Link to comment
Each human life, each plant, each planet, each star is unique - not a copy of something else, I would call that creative. Each leaf on each tree is unique - look at the veins, fingerprints - these are all unique.... humans mass produce things that are not unique, God creates things that are not mere copies.
Irrelevant--the design that ID proponents point to in life (such as a particular flagellum) is the same. Anyhow, you're saying that the variation in fingerprints and leaves is evidence of design? Not even the Discovery Institute would argue that.
Unique = creatively designed.
Not necessarily. If I flip a coin a thousand times and write down the pattern of heads and tails, is that unique pattern designed?
Link to comment

Perhaps you should just take a deep breath and then try to wrap your mind around it. It's not that complicated.

Well, I am not impressed with the intelligence of a God who can only procreate and manage the procreation of animals whose body plan he had no hand in designing.

I am also not impressed with the intelligence of someone who doesn't get the point.

Just what aspect of the human body do find impressive? Well, God didn't think it up.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...