King Follet Discourses

[Mordecai]

What meaning does justice or mercy have (or injustice and cruelty have) without the existence of something intelligent to act and be acted upon? Mercy and justice are not in and of themselves intelligent, are they?

Well, there is nothing in the universe that can exist or have meaning without a context. Also, this:

The design is eternal because whenever a being with all knowledge and all power creates bodies for similar intelligences they will be similar bodies.

That's kind of along the lines of what I'm thinking.

[semlogo]

I disagree. A designer is quite likely to copy older designs. It would still result in a positive identification of intelligent design using Intelligent Design methodology.

Not really - then he would be a copyist, not a designer. In any case, our particular design was never designed - that is, if you believe LDS theology (which I do).

[semlogo]

My uncle and son-in-law are both landscape designers, my aunt is an interior decorator and my son is a graphic designer for Johnson and Johnson. All of them disagree with you.

They're really executing, not designing. That's like saying you can call yourself a composer if you only do cover songs.

[Tarski]

I think you should perhaps read the whole thread.

Anyway,...

The design is eternal

Well, this seems to do violence to the meaning of design. Basically, if there was never a being that sat down and originally creatively thought up or planned out how the thing was going to work and made substantial clever design decisions, then in what sense is it designed and why would we see the hand of God?

Asbestosman and myself have explained carefully how there could logically (but weirdly) be eternal repetition and production of items with apparent design but without there being any design or godlike beings or even consciousness. We might have a world where every chicken is procreated by chickens forever in both directions of time and yet there is nothing in this toy universe but chickens (specifically there are no no gods or designers). We might even imagine an eternity of robots who make robots like themselves and know how to do basically nothing else. So when someone looks at an apparently designed thing like an animal and says that this is evidence for God we can just immediately defeat that by logical example as long as we are willing to live with the strangeness of eternalisms like the scenarios above. Mormon theology to me looks like this kind of designless eternalism. God, in what I will for convenience call "King-Follet eternalism", is not the inventor of the human body or of the body of any plant or animal (or at least he doesn't need to be for the system to work). He may be a procreator or a farmer and protector, but not a designer of the very complex functional aspects of animals that are impressive to ID theorists.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Then no design and no originality and the feeling of being impressed that intelligent design advocates feel is spurious.

The following implication would be nullified by this eternalism more strongly than it is nullified by natural selection:

"I see apparent design therefore there must be an intelligent designer."

No! There is no such "must".

Seeing the hand of God in nature would be largely nullified since with eternalism one doesn't even need a God at all (chain of chickens or chain of robots).

Leaving God with nothing to do but tweek details like fingerprints (which randomness can take care of just fine) isn't really godlike and has nothing to do with the inference ID theorists are making!

Some questions:

Design specifications never specified by anyone if we assume "King-Follet eternalism":

Who decided that nipples should be on the chest of a human male? Who decided that there should be two eyes in the head of man or that the heart should be located in the chest? Whose insight was it to use mouths to send vibrations to the ears as a means of communication?

Who designed the brain? Whose idea was the very notion of a brain? Who thought fingernails were a good idea? Who invented the cell?

[asbestosman]

Well, there is nothing in the universe that can exist or have meaning without a context. Also, this:

The design is eternal because whenever a being with all knowledge and all power creates bodies for similar intelligences they will be similar bodies.

That's kind of along the lines of what I'm thinking.

I can see why an intelligent being would create bodies similar to His own, but I still don't see how it buys anything to objection that since there was no first, there is no logical need to infer the necessity of intelligence to cause it. If you can imagine that there was no first intelligence who then creates similar bodies for similar intelligences, then why not imagine the same scenario for unintelligent robots with no first robot? What differs between robots and truly intelligent agents like gods such that a chain of robots would not explain something that a chain of gods would when it comes to the evaluation of functionally complex things such as life? Is it the existence of consciousness itself that is the key?

[asbestosman]

What? You didn't know that I knew that Asbestosman is YOUR sockpuppet? Not so amused now, are you?

Now, THAT would have been a whole bunch of funny.

As much as I admire Tarski's knowledge of mathematics and physics, I wouldn't want to be him. I'd hate to miss out on my 30's.

[Ahab]

Here's a thought that may help some of you to see something I see that some people don't seem to be able to see, yet.

The way I see it, Tarski is operating from the premise that God can't be a designer of something that has always existed, because that's not what a designer can do.

Now look at what all designers do whenever they design something.

Aren't they all creating something that has always existed, even if their "new" creation is a little bit different than other things of a similar kind, or nature?

I say Yes, and that's the thought that I'd like to share with all of you "smart people" out there.

Take my spirit, for example, and consider the fact that spirits like mine are things that have always existed, even though my spirit is just a little bit different than all other spirits of a similar nature.

Every single one of us is a new creation, even though there are others like us that are out there and there always have been for all of eternity.

[Ahab]

What differs between robots and truly intelligent agents like gods such that a chain of robots would not explain something that a chain of gods would when it comes to the evaluation of functionally complex things such as life? Is it the existence of consciousness itself that is the key?

The ability to "explain" or "understand" things is not what constitutes life, or intelligence, even if something has the ability to "explain" or "understand" ALL things.

Take Mr. Data, from Star Trek, as an example, even when he had an "emotion" chip.

Do you really think that kind of robot would constitute what it means to be an alive and intelligent being, if such a robot actually existed?

I think such a being would come very close, but it still would not be either a living or an intelligent creature like us, much less with the potential to become all that we (all beings like us) can truly become.

... and if you don't understand that, I hope you have fun in your lab while you keep trying to figure that out.

[semlogo]

Here's a thought that may help some of you to see something I see that some people don't seem to be able to see, yet.

The way I see it, Tarski is operating from the premise that God can't be a designer of something that has always existed, because that's not what a designer can do.

Now look at what all designers do whenever they design something.

Aren't they all creating something that has always existed, even if their "new" creation is a little bit different than other things of a similar kind, or nature?

I say Yes, and that's the thought that I'd like to share with all of you "smart people" out there.

Take my spirit, for example, and consider the fact that spirits like mine are things that have always existed, even though my spirit is just a little bit different than all other spirits of a similar nature.

Every single one of us is a new creation, even though there are others like us that are out there and there always have been for all of eternity.

What you're talking about is being influenced by something, but coming up with your own unique contributions, enough to make something new and not entirely derivative. That's not what we're talking about here.

[44Foxtrot]

Here's a thought that may help some of you to see something I see that some people don't seem to be able to see, yet.

The way I see it, Tarski is operating from the premise that God can't be a designer of something that has always existed, because that's not what a designer can do.

Now look at what all designers do whenever they design something.

Aren't they all creating something that has always existed, even if their "new" creation is a little bit different than other things of a similar kind, or nature?

I say Yes, and that's the thought that I'd like to share with all of you "smart people" out there.

Take my spirit, for example, and consider the fact that spirits like mine are things that have always existed, even though my spirit is just a little bit different than all other spirits of a similar nature.

Every single one of us is a new creation, even though there are others like us that are out there and there always have been for all of eternity.

Ahab,

Some of the "smart people" out here you refer to are scientists. As a scientist, I get very uncomfortable when folks start making assertions about supernatural design, or eternal spirit, and even eternity, when the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that such things are not required for universe as we observe it. The universe we observe is much more accurately and predicatively explained by the math and physics (and yes biology) that has been hard won by humankind mainly over the last few hundred years.

Please understand that the only evidence that you have for the assertions you are making about a supernatural god, and "spirit" and eternity come originally from the writing down of stories told by minimally educated people who believed that the earth was flat with the cosmos as a dome above it, and disease could be attributed to spirits or demons.

Religionists, using these writings as fact, then try to convince others (including rationalists) that we should use this superstition and myth as the basis for a belief system.

In fact, this universe is not eternal. It is about 13.6 billion years old and will eventually cease to be capable of supporting life as we know it. So as far as humankind is concerned, it had a beginning and will have an end.

As has been pointed out, the concept of an eternal designer does not make any sense logically. No physical evidence can be offered in support of such a being that is not better explained by conventional mainstream science.

So, While I respect your right to believe as you wish, you should know that the accumulated verifiable knowledge of humankind, especially over the last few hundred years, does not support those beliefs. In fact it stand in stark contrast to such beliefs.

Since the religionist have no reproducible, physical, verifiable, facts to support their position on these issues, I have a hard time seeing how they can expect to present any convincing argument on these issue to those who do

[Ahab]

What you're talking about is being influenced by something, but coming up with your own unique contributions, enough to make something new and not entirely derivative. That's not what we're talking about here.

I'm talking about that because that's at least a part of what all "designers" do.

You and others seem to think a designer is necessarily someone who comes up with something totally new original and totally unlike anything else already in existence, but there is no proof that there is or ever has been a designer like that in all of existence.

EVERY designer in ALL of existence, or at least all of known existence, has ALWAYS created something based upon other things that are like it, to which they then usually add their own touch while sometimes allowing their creations to develop their own attributes.

Why you're trying to hold God to a different standard is something I don't understand, but the least you can do is consider him to be an Intelligent Designer, which he is.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

Some of the "smart people" out here you refer to are scientists. As a scientist, I get very uncomfortable when folks start making assertions about supernatural design, or eternal spirit, and even eternity, when the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that such things are not required for universe as we observe it. The universe we observe is much more accurately and predicatively explained by the math and physics (and yes biology) that has been hard won by humankind mainly over the last few hundred years.

Please understand that the only evidence that you have for the assertions you are making about a supernatural god, and "spirit" and eternity come originally from the writing down of stories told by minimally educated people who believed that the earth was flat with the cosmos as a dome above it, and disease could be attributed to spirits or demons.

Religionists, using these writings as fact, then try to convince others (including rationalists) that we should use this superstition and myth as the basis for a belief system.

In fact, this universe is not eternal. It is about 13.6 billion years old and will eventually cease to be capable of supporting life as we know it. So as far as humankind is concerned, it had a beginning and will have an end.

As has been pointed out, the concept of an eternal designer does not make any sense logically. No physical evidence can be offered in support of such a being that is not better explained by conventional mainstream science.

So, While I respect your right to believe as you wish, you should know that the accumulated verifiable knowledge of humankind, especially over the last few hundred years, does not support those beliefs. In fact it stand in stark contrast to such beliefs.

Since the religionist have no reproducible, physical, verifiable, facts to support their position on these issues, I have a hard time seeing how they can expect to present any convincing argument on these issue to those who do

Hey fly boy. Good to hear from you again.

FYI, just in case you haven't heard yet, we "Mormons" aren't people who consider our Father in heaven to be some kind of being who is entirely unlike us "humans", and in fact we believe we are the same kind of being he is, even though we are not as advanced or mature or as perfect as he is, yet.

Hopefully that little tidbit of information will help to keep you from confusing us "Mormons" with all of the other kinds of Christians and "religionists" which are out there.

[semlogo]

I'm talking about that because that's at least a part of what all "designers" do.

You and others seem to think a designer is necessarily someone who comes up with something totally new original and totally unlike anything else already in existence, but there is no proof that there is or ever has been a designer like that in all of existence.

EVERY designer in ALL of existence, or at least all of known existence, has ALWAYS created something based upon other things that are like it, to which they then usually add their own touch while sometimes allowing their creations to develop their own attributes.

Why you're trying to hold God to a different standard is something I don't understand, but the least you can do is consider him to be an Intelligent Designer, which he is.

What new innovation did God add to the human body?

Or to the God body, for that matter? These things have always existed. Ergo, no one designed them.

[Ahab]

What new innovation did God add to the human body?

Or to the God body, for that matter?

My point is that he didn't and doesn't have to add anything "new" to the human body to be considered a designer of them. All he has to do is design one or more of them, and he did and still does, which makes him just as much a designer of human bodies or the spirits inside human bodies as an architect is the designer of a house or a lot of houses.

These things have always existed. Ergo, no one designed them.

Whether or not they have always existed is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he is a designer of us or anything else that he has designed and created.

[semlogo]

My point is that he didn't and doesn't have to add anything "new" to the human body to be considered a designer of them. All he has to do is design one or more of them, and he did and still does, which makes him just as much a designer of human bodies or the spirits inside human bodies as an architect is the designer of a house or a lot of houses.

Whether or not they have always existed is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he is a designer of us or anything else that he has designed and created.

Which one did He design?

If someone were to retype The Old Man and The Sea, who would get authorship credit, the typist or Ernest Hemingway?

[Ahab]

Which one did He design?

Our Father in heaven designed all of the spirits of his own children.

If someone were to retype The Old Man and The Sea, who would get authorship credit, the typist or Ernest Hemingway?

Who would, or who should?

God should get at least some credit because he had at least some part in the design of Ernest Hemingway and the typist.

[Analytics]

My point is that he didn't and doesn't have to add anything "new" to the human body to be considered a designer of them. All he has to do is design one or more of them, and he did and still does, which makes him just as much a designer of human bodies or the spirits inside human bodies as an architect is the designer of a house or a lot of houses.

Whether or not they have always existed is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he is a designer of us or anything else that he has designed and created.

What if He used the same design that His father used to create Him?

Applying your analogy to the King Follet view, God didn't design any of the houses. Rather, God is a builder who builds houses using the the same plans that He was given, which have been eternally handed down from one generation of builders to another, but never originally designed.

People and animals have always been begotten after their own kind--they were never designed.

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Good point. Instead of "Intelligent Designer", how about "Intelligent Steward" or "Divine Steward"?

[Ahab]

What if He used the same design that His father used to create Him?

Then every child he produced or created would be exactly like him, without any variation at all.

Applying your analogy to the King Follet view, God didn't design any of the houses. Rather, God is a builder who builds houses using the the same plans that He was given, which have been eternally handed down from one generation of builders to another, but never originally designed.

No, that is not what God taught through Joseph when delivering the KFD.

God designed all of our houses, so to speak, and his design includes giving us the freedom to knock down a few walls and even add on a few additions that weren't and still aren't exactly up to his code. God's design also includes allowing us to get ourselves up to code, however, even after we have made a ton of mistakes, so that God's plan may also produce a child pretty much exactly like him.

People and animals have always been begotten after their own kind--they were never designed.

The fact that people and animals have always existed doesn't mean they were not and are not continually designed, just as the fact that houses have been around forever doesn't mean we no longer design any houses.

[44Foxtrot]

Hey fly boy. Good to hear from you again.

FYI, just in case you haven't heard yet, we "Mormons" aren't people who consider our Father in heaven to be some kind of being who is entirely unlike us "humans", and in fact we believe we are the same kind of being he is, even though we are not as advanced or mature or as perfect as he is, yet.

Hopefully that little tidbit of information will help to keep you from confusing us "Mormons" with all of the other kinds of Christians and "religionists" which are out there.

Hi Ahab,

Thanks for the kind welcome back.

Turns out that I was born into the Mormon Church and left it when I could no longer handle the cog dis created by the stark conflict between science and religion. As I saw it, a choice was required in order to be able to form an internally consistent worldview. I chose to go with science (and what I saw as my personal integrity), even though that decision could well have cost me my TBM family. (But that's another story.)

As I see it, either one believes in religion ( a magical view of how the world works) or one believes in science (wherein conclusions about how the world works based on reproducible, verifiable, physical evidence).

Many people on this board claim there is no conflict between science and theism. IMHO, the most likely reason for this is because they have not done sufficient reading (or gained sufficient understanding) in science, or religion, or both.

That is not to say that science does not have its scars and warts. It certainly does. But at least it progresses. And it is, to a large extent, self-correcting. (What is proclaimed as truth must stand up to peer review.)

In religion, we are told what truth is by others. No meaningful peer review is tolerated.

As the LDS Church has learned time and time again in these fast changing times, self-correction is difficult and painful for an institution that already claims to have the ultimate eternal truth.

_____________

From an earlier thread: we would be happy to discuss things with you on our sailboat sometime. We believe in crew diversity. Both believers and non-believers are always welcome on board. I can think of no place on Earth where differences in worldview mean less than on a sailboat, especially in situations that require everyone to work together (which seems to be most of the time down here lately.)

[asbestosman]

Ahab,

I believe God created us as a part of my faith (which I believe is justified by various experiences). I believe that without God we would not have existed. I believe that we differ from Mr. Data in that we have spirits and the potential to become like our Heavenly Father. I'm with you on all those points. Where I differ is on design inference.

Just because our bodies are copied doesn't mean bodies weren't designed. Someone else could have designed them, and then an Intelligent Agent (God) could have copied it because it made sense. He may have even added some personal touches like the color of our hair or height or something. I completely agree so far. However, in most cases of copying design we can still infer design because of the original design. Someone created the original and thus we are justified in saying that we know someone designed it even if we do not know whether the instance we currently see is the original or a copy. The problem with bodies is that there is no original. Since everyone copied from a previous instance, there is nobody we can point to and state that he made the original.

That's not a proof that God didn't create us or that He didn't intelligently consider that copying the previous design was the right thing to do. I can't and won't attempt to prove that we exist without God. I believe God did create us. The only thing I'm saying is that someone must have made an original design because something is too complicated to have arisen by chance is defeated when one also believes that there never was a first instance where somebody designed something that could be called a body--even when taking all prior art into account. There is no first body and nobody to point to as a designer of the first body. Without that, it then becomes special pleading to use probability to argue for design as Intelligent Design proponents do because you've already conceded the existence of complex things which never had a first instance--they simply existed as complicated things eternally.

[asbestosman]

Good point. Instead of "Intelligent Designer", how about "Intelligent Steward" or "Divine Steward"?

Sure, but how do we make an argument for Steward Inference?

[Ahab]

As I see it, either one believes in religion ( a magical view of how the world works) or one believes in science (wherein conclusions about how the world works based on reproducible, verifiable, physical evidence).

Many people profess to believe in both. IMHO, the most likely reason for this is because they have not done sufficient reading in science, or religion, or both.

Here is the scientific method, as I see it.

CHEERS:

1. Choose an idea and/or problem to research.

2. Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.

3. Experiment to test hypotheses.

4. Examine results of the experiment(s).

5. Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.

6. Share what has been learned.

I'm one of the many who has figured out how to scientifically learn from and about God through religion, and if you still think it can't be done then I think that means you haven't learned very much from or about God, scientifically.

That is not to say that science does not have its scars and warts. It certainly does. But at least it progresses. And it is, to a large extent, self-correcting. (What is proclaimed as truth must stand up to peer review.)

I plan to continue to use science and scientifically based research to learn everything there is to know about everything, including God and religion.

In religion, we are told what truth is by others. No meaningful peer review is tolerated.

I learned a long time ago not to believe everything everybody tells me, and I also learned that the key to learning the truth is in learning who to learn from.

As the LDS Church has learned time and time again in these fast changing times, self-correction is difficult and painful for an institution that already claims to have the ultimate eternal truth.

The Church claims to have the ultimate eternal truth because the Church claims to have God with us, and as long as we are with him we will have all that he has.

_____________

From an earlier thread: we would be happy to discuss things with you on our sailboat sometime. We believe in crew diversity. Both believers and non-believers are always welcome on board. I can think of no place on Earth where differences in worldview mean less than on a sailboat, especially in situations that require everyone to work together (which seems to most of the time down here.)

Thank you for the invitation, and we would be happy to discuss things with you pretty much anytime wherever we are, anytime.

[Ahab]

deleted - accidental double post

[Ahab]

asbestosman,

When you say God, I often get the idea that you are talking about only one person, specifically.

Try, instead, to think of God as ANY and ALL people who are the same kind of being he is, and then ask who our Father in heaven would have learned from had he learned from someone else who had, as you would say, already come up with the design.

God is the one who designed us, but God isn't limited to only our Father in heaven, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit.