Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

King Follet Discourses


Tarski

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking similar thoughts about you, Tarski. Try answering my questions instead of just giving me some of your, or other, questions to answer.

Without any design, there would be no standard form for a body. One person could conceivably look like an elephant while another person could conceivably look like a dog while everybody thought something like: What, isn't that normal?

Which totally proves MY point. Without any design, there would be no standard form for a body? Exactly!!

But, but but, .....now listen. This standard form is exactly what was NOT designed in King-Follet theology. It took no genius to think it up because it was never thought up. It always existed! God can't even re-think it up since it was always right in front of his face in full detail. The form of the human body cannot have been designed if it always existed. God couldn't even claim to have re-designed it independently since he not only had the model handed to him, he was the model. He could not have claimed to have been the source of the blueprint, the originator of the idea, or the cleverness necessary to think it up because it didn't need to be designed, it already existed and was never designed. You may as well claim that YOU designed the human body in an act of incredible genius.

It's like you can't tell the difference between plagiarism and creativity.

Why would something that has always existed and in plain sight for all gods to see need to be designed?

Please read slower and think about it more. Try just assuming that we must have a point since we obviously aren't stupid. I promise that there is a point you are missing.

If you mean anything other than what I do by design, then it isn't what is at issue in intelligent design arguments for the existence of God.

It's the "design" of the body that describes what the body is supposed to look like, and as any good scientist should know, that "design" code is inherent in the DNA we possess which enables us to design bodies of other people who look at least something like us, at least if all things go as they should go without any glitches in the manufacturing processes.

and this addresses my point how? It seems that this is again my point! If it was intelligently designed then King-Follet theology is false. If Dembski can prove his point, then Jospeph Smith was wrong--at least as people have understood him.

All of us, pretty much, and preferably on the front of the head a little above our noses instead of in the back or on the top where our hair would get in the way.

All of us decided that the human form should have eyes in the head? ;) Funny I don't remember being a part of the design of the human body. In fact, if King-Follet theology is true then nobody was and nobody could be without some convoluted causal gymnastics involving hypertime or something unlikely to even make sense.

What you call design is nothing but copying with possible trivial modifications. This doesn't take a God and it isn't what intelligent design folks think they see in biology. Not even close.

Every time one of us who can design one designed one.

Everytime we design the human form? whaaat?

OK, I am going to design a cool sentence. Ready?

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

There!

How do you like my design? LOL

No, because without any design there would be random chaos with no pattern to tell us anything about how anything should be.

That's what ID folks say. But Mormon theology, KFD theology, directly contradicts that. The human form is undesigned since it had no origin and was never hidden from any God. No God would have even needed to reinvent it. Ineed, it was never invented.

Not to anyone with enough intelligence to see that it doesn't.

well, if you can convince Asbestosman whom we know is very intelligent, I will concede the point.

What I see is that both ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Not unless you use the notion of "intelligent design" in a way completely irrelevant to the goals of ID which is to provide evidence of a designer God.

If pattern or blueprint can be accepted to have just existed forever then we don't need a God to have produced it. The apparent design in nature would provide a bit of evidence in this cas for this unneeded designer.

Try thinking of the DNA of a person being what enables a person to design another person like they are, rather than a person having to write some kind of design plan on some kind of a piece of paper to tell someone in some kind of manufacturing plant how to manufacture a body like ours.

:P

That is NOT design and it does not take not intelligence. Pigs do it. It's called makin' bacon.

it isn't even design if I read my own DNA, and used the information to construct a human body. It doesn't take Godlike intelligence to do this.

Look, for ID theorists, it is the design itself that had intelligent origin. But if there was no origin, then it can't have an intelligent origin.

If KFD theology, no God conceived of the human form. No God used intelligence to invent it (in Mormon theology).

Design is like invent. Did God (the King-Follet notion) invent the human body? No. No more than I invented the the Shakespeare sentence or my own body.

I just realized that if you read the whole thread, even Asbestosman's examples, and still don't get it any better than this then nothing I can do will help---oh, and I do understand you which exactly why I know you don't understand my point still.

Link to comment

King Follet theology taken at face value seems to imply that things like the human body (or it blueprint) can exist without ever having been designed at all or without ever having had a begining at all.

But that is how matter is. Matter is uncreatable. It always comes from somewhere else. It has been in existence for eternity - even before this universe. That's why all non-ex-nihlo attempts to explain anything rely on matter that has existed infinitely in the past. Thus King Follet quite fits into this category, as does modern explanations behind evolution.

Link to comment

I just don't get it. When did any God at all design the human body? 50 billion years ago? A billion billion years ago? Whatever time you say, I think there will immediately be a problem with matching up to King-Follet theology which would hold that long before whatever time you say there were already human bodies (and who designed those?) and this God of yours would know all about them already. Copy is not design.

You have stumbled into the truth.

It is a myth that the Creator designed anything. Nowhere do we find this in the scriptures. In each case, the organisms were placed upon the earth, a form of panspermia. The creator was a project manager -- planning, scheduling, building, and giving the final approval on each stage of the project.

Link to comment

If we were created in the image of God, that image (the human body) already existed for eternity, and was not designed.

You should probably tell him to look at Abraham's use of the word 'organized' over 'create'. It'll explain things a bit better to him I think.

Link to comment

Did our father in heaven come up with the pattern for our eyeballs?

Yes, and I'm sure that at least one of them had hazel colored eyes, like mine are.

What do you mean by "at least one of them"? Let me be as clear as possible. First let me make a stipulation. When I use the expression "our father in heaven" (or similar expressions) I mean to refer to a single individual person. Next, in asking if the singular individual to which I intend to refer came up with the patter for our eyeballs, I mean to ask if whether our having the sort visual sensory equipment that we have is the result of something more than mere reproduction. So, here, let me ask the question in two parts in this way:

(1) Is the general structure of the human eye the result more than mere reproduction on the part of our heavenly father?

(2) Is the general structure of the human eye the result of deliberate choices made by our heavenly father such that he choose the general shape of a human eye, the positions of nerves, blood vessels, and other tissues?

**Note** Please answer questions 1 and 2 with the understanding that when I use the expression "our heavenly father" I mean a single individual person and not a group of persons.

Next, if your answer is 'yes' to either of those then please answer the following question:

Does our heavenly father have eyes of the same type?

**Note** Please answer the above question with the understanding that when I use the expression "our heavenly father" I mean a single individual person and not a group of persons.

Link to comment

What do you mean by "at least one of them"? Let me be as clear as possible. First let me make a stipulation. When I use the expression "our father in heaven" (or similar expressions) I mean to refer to a single individual person. Next, in asking if the singular individual to which I intend to refer came up with the patter for our eyeballs, I mean to ask if whether our having the sort visual sensory equipment that we have is the result of something more than mere reproduction. So, here, let me ask the question in two parts in this way:

(1) Is the general structure of the human eye the result more than mere reproduction on the part of our heavenly father?

(2) Is the general structure of the human eye the result of deliberate choices made by our heavenly father such that he choose the general shape of a human eye, the positions of nerves, blood vessels, and other tissues?

**Note** Please answer questions 1 and 2 with the understanding that when I use the expression "our heavenly father" I mean a single individual person and not a group of persons.

Next, if your answer is 'yes' to either of those then please answer the following question:

Does our heavenly father have eyes of the same type?

**Note** Please answer the above question with the understanding that when I use the expression "our heavenly father" I mean a single individual person and not a group of persons.

Here, lemme explain.

God the Father organized our bodies after his own. Yes, he has eyeballs. Of flesh. And we wanted them too. So we came down here and got them. Much in the same way he got them.

How he did it is really kinda inconsequential to me tbh, considering that the entire point was to have them.

Yes, heavenly father's eye was made for seeing, much as ours is. Our eyes are made in the same ways his are. How he made them go that way, I'm not sure, but he made them go that way, that he did.

As to his eyes, they can see much more than ours, as they have the 'veil' lifted off of them.

Link to comment
Because we then know that things may look intelligently designed without being so. This undercuts ID.

Not to anyone with enough intelligence to see that it doesn't.

I've been thinking about it, and I'm not sure that my special pleading to reconcile KFD with ID is any different than other Christians special pleading that God is not complex and therefore doesn't need a designer. Apparently whatever non-complex entity God is can yet do things we find complicated like create man. I'm not sure why one couldn't imagine the existence of natural laws which do the same thing but which are no more intelligent than gravity or magnetism.

Thus, in a sense perhaps Mormonism isn't any worse off than traditional Christianity when it comes to ID. As I recall, ID proponents aren't fond of talking about the complexity (or simplicity) of God--preferring not say anything at all about whether God is complex. Rather they insist that by using a naturalist's supposed paradigm about what can be observed (known universe, no multi-verses allowed, etc.) that such a person would be compelled to acknowledge design. Just nevermind the fact that real naturalists don't agree with the calculation of the odds or even whether we can so easily dismiss the possibility of multi-verses (for reasons that have nothing to do with increasing the odds of life as it turns out).

Link to comment

If you mean anything other than what I do by design, then it isn't what is at issue in intelligent design arguments for the existence of God.

... Design is like invent.

Like invent. Yeah, kinda sorta, at least sometimes.

When I do landscape design for a piece of property, it's kinda like inventing a whole new piece of property, or at least the new landscape can make it appear that way.

Did God (the King-Follet notion) invent the human body? o. No more than I invented the the Shakespeare sentence or my own body.

Tell me some more about the sense in which you can invent your own body, and I think we might be able to come to some kind of an agreement.

I just realized that if you read the whole thread, even Asbestosman's examples, and still don't get it any better than this then nothing I can do will help---oh, and I do understand you which exactly why I know you don't understand my point still.

Try to realize that I do get what you are saying, and that it appears to me that you aren't getting what I am saying.

All you need to realize to get my point is that God is intelligent and God does the same kind of designing that other designers do when they design whatever they design, which makes God at least some kind of an Intelligent Designer.

Link to comment

Regardless, our own scriptures say that God created man:

Yeah but it doesn't say how. Intelligence just unfolds itself like a flower in the morning sun. I know that's cryptic I guess, but I already posted my idea- I just don't feel like doing it all over again. I think the "rules" themselves grew almost organically. At least that is a good analogy.

Is the information in a seed a Platonic form? Do Platonic forms mutate and adjust themselves to different environments?

Link to comment

Yeah but it doesn't say how. Intelligence just unfolds itself like a flower in the morning sun. I know that's cryptic I guess, but I already posted my idea- I just don't feel like doing it all over again. I think the "rules" themselves grew almost organically. At least that is a good analogy.

Is the information in a seed a Platonic form? Do Platonic forms mutate and adjust themselves to different environments?

It sounds like evolution: selection explores the space of possibilities which has it's own "intelligence".

I have heard it said somewhere that God simply makes room for things to create themselves. Maybe it was John Haught.

Link to comment

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.

There was a philosopher named Plato who stole this idea from a guy named Pythagoras (remember high school geometry?) in around 350 BC.

Link to comment

It sounds like evolution: selection explores the space of possibilities which has it's own "intelligence".

I have heard it said somewhere that God simply makes room for things to create themselves. Maybe it was John Haught.

Well OUR environment DOES have "intelligence" in a pretty real sense.

In human evolution we affect the environment probably more than the environment affects us- so natural selection really doesn't work in culture. It is more symbiosis.

Put an infant child in the wilderness and see how well adapted we are to the natural world. We haven't been "naturally selected" for millions of years. We create culture, it creates us. We make our own environment. I haven't seen many scientists talking about that- lots of philosophers do. But maybe I haven't been reading the right science.

But that's at least one example of how intelligence interplays with evolution that is right in front of our noses. We are examples of that right now, today. We humans have been formed- I won't say "designed" but formed- by intelligence. It is the interplay between culture and morals, modern medicine and population genetics that really drives "un-natural intelligent selection" in modern humans.

And in my belief "Adam" was the first to have human culture- I happen to believe in a literal human being who was named that, but it wouldn't be necessary to believe that to accept it all in a mythic sense.

Link to comment

Put an infant child in the wilderness and see how well adapted we are to the natural world. We haven't been "naturally selected" for millions of years. We create culture, it creates us. We make our own environment. I haven't seen many scientists talking about that- lots of philosophers do. But maybe I haven't been reading the right science.

Biologists speak quite a bit about the domestication of plants and animals. We've been doing it for thousands of years and have been very good at it--long before we discovered DNA or even had Darwin's Origin of the Species. Furthermore scientists speak quite a bit about how man shapes the environment (as well as our far too frequent short-sightedness when doing so).

Link to comment

Well OUR environment DOES have "intelligence" in a pretty real sense.

This is true.

By the way, and I know this isn't what your post is about but I can't help but point out that our enviroment contains information and if anyone wonders where the information in the genome is comming from, it is comming from the environment and is transfered there by natural selection. The genome contains information about the environment in that it reflects what is functionally needed to survive in the environment. I almost jokingly say that the strcutre of a hand encode information about typical things in the environment like bananas stickes and other peoples hands.

Not that I believe there is any law of conservation information but if you want to talk in those terms....

More related to your point: There is a book about intelliegence (title I can't recall) that talks about the ways in which our own thinking is done outside brain in some sense by using pencils, fingers, visual cues, and other people. For example visual information during perceptual act can be stored largely in the world itelf--why store information in the head that can be instantly retreived by a mere glance to the left.

Link to comment

You should become more familiar with things like dictionaries before you make silly statements like that.

Here is what you orginally said to spur on the beginning of our little discussion about whether or not God is the one who designed us.

As I was saying, the original God who designed us didn't have a beginning to his existence, even though there was a time before he was what he is now with each stage having both a beginning and an end to that particular stage.

This life experience, for example, has both a beginning and an ending, even though there is no beginning or ending to our, and his, overall existence.

Likewise, there are several different "design" stages that all of us go through, with our Father in heaven being one of the many designers who is trying to help us become all that we can become.

So, there. You've now been corrected, again, in English.

In LDS theology, there is no original God who designed us. Unless you're thinking of starting your own LDS offshoot.

Link to comment

This looks like it has been an interesting discussion. I had neglected this thread for some time; but now that I have been looking through it, it appears to have been an interesting discussion.

I think that both side of the argument have missed, or overlooked, an important point: The question does not center on the design aspect of things, but on the origin of things

Link to comment
For example visual information during perceptual act can be stored largely in the world itelf--why store information in the head that can be instantly retreived by a mere glance to the left.

He said glancing at the clock and then his day planner trying to decide how much time he could devote to Tarski's post.....

Good point!

By the way, and I know this isn't what your post is about but I can't help but point out that our enviroment contains information and if anyone wonders where the information in the genome is comming from, it is comming from the environment and is transfered there by natural selection. The genome contains information about the environment in that it reflects what is functionally needed to survive in the environment. I almost jokingly say that the strcutre of a hand encode information about typical things in the environment like bananas stickes and other peoples hands.

Not that I believe there is any law of conservation information but if you want to talk in those terms....

The question for me is really at what point is that selection "natural" and at what point is it really "designed" (I am using that term advisedly here- not being a proponent of what is known as "intelligent design" in its usual sense)

Take the keyboard- now with qwerty locked into the culture- it is totally ironic that qwerty keyboards are now used by thumbs alone and designed to be used by thumbs- I mean where is the selection and where is the design in that. Talk about "conservation of information"..... we are stuck with qwerty and may be forever even though it is totally irrational in today's uses.

But that is the way we get locked into irrational cultural ways of seeing the world- I know some here would put God in that category, but when religion is seen as a rational explanation for the roots and "meaning" of subjective experience, in my view, it is the irrational reification of some kind of world outside of culture which is the culprit.

I hope at least one person here understands that sentence if they agree with it or not. Not for one second that they are incapable- it is just such a paradigm shift from what I see that it becomes doubtful.

Link to comment

Another way intelligence effects evolution: in a sense it could be said that the species itself defines its own direction through behavior. Behaviors I think precede natural selection or are part of it- and behavior is in some sense "intelligence".

Before a proto-giraffe can even be selected for a longer neck, he has to find the behavior of eating leaves instead of grass. Once the behavior is entrenched, now "selection" can proceed to favor those with longer necks- but if the behavior wasn't there to start with, the species would just die out before it could even be selected. It would not be possible to be selected for a longer neck until it decided it would eat leaves instead of grass.

The behavior,("intelligence") preceded selection. No evidence necessarily of "design" but yet you have intelligence making the first step. Some animals figured out it was eat leaves or die, so it could be said that intelligence itself was "evolving". Creatures which are more flexible in behavior become more adaptable, which opens the door for further progression in the "direction" of intelligence. So that is some evidence that to me, shows that intelligence itself 1- evolves and 2- is the underlying driver for evolution itself, making natural selection a secondary force.

So intelligence can be seen to lead evolution even in a Darwinian sense. The organisms which do not change their initial strategy to the changing environment will die off before those who do change will- even before there are any physical changes to be "selected for".

Link to comment

But that is the way we get locked into irrational cultural ways of seeing the world- I know some here would put God in that category, but when religion is seen as a rational explanation for the roots and "meaning" of subjective experience, in my view, it is the irrational reification of some kind of world outside of culture which is the culprit.

I hope at least one person here understands that sentence if they agree with it or not. Not for one second that they are incapable- it is just such a paradigm shift from what I see that it becomes doubtful.

Actually I am not sure. Did you mean to say "irrational reification into some kind of world outside of culture which is the culprit"? In other words, are you saying that something really existing at the level of culture is inappropriately reified into something supposedly outside culture?

Link to comment

Most of the problems I see in this long post is in disguising the real interpretation of what Intelligent Designer really proposes. In "ID" theory, the word "design" is used in the context to refute that complex "designs" found in life and nature were randomly created by Darwinian evolution. "Design" in this context refers to material (usually biologic material) that has both intelligent purpose and design elements. ID doesn't propose that it could ever find the beginning of the design, only that it was designed, not randomly generated. Basically its like this-

Take the cell for example. In the cell is a design. The design is the functioning blueprint for life. It is a "design" because it carries both purpose and intelligent function and communicative abilities that carry out work. There are many examples of both naturally occuring designs and intelligently occuring designs in biology and nature. The snowflake is a naturally occuring design in nature that doesn't carry intelligent information in it. The cell on the other hand is a design in biology that carries with it intelligent information.

"Design" doesn't implicitly mean that it was invented. A design can be handed down from one generation to the next infinitly and still be called a "design". In the case of DNA, it is thus a design handed down from generation to the next. Because it carries intelligent information it is thus an intelligent design, not a natural design as one finds in a snowflake.

ID theory thus establishes itself on this basis that intelligent designs in nature- like that of the structure of DNA was not randomly generated. ID'ers do not believe it is possible to randomly generate intelligence or intelligent information from random acts in nature as Darwinian evolution proposes. That is what the battle is over- whether or not intelligent information originated from an intelligent source to begin with or if it was generated randomly. ID theories do not espouse philosophies as to what, when, how intelligent information came about as some falsely think so on this board. ID does not claim that intelligent information- like that of a cell was invented x amount of years ago, no, it only claims that intelligent information- call it "design" in nature if you will, came about because of an intelligent source preceeding it.

Thus, Intelligent Design as a theory is completely backed up by LDS doctrinal claims about eternal intelligence. We can squabble all day over the semantics of "design" and how it is used but any real knowledgable person on the matter already knows that the ID/evolution debate is entirely over our origins on this planet- whether we originated froma purely random and unguided process in nature or whether we originated because of the designs of an intelligence. LDS doctrine denys factually that we were randomly generated, instead LDS doctrine factually states that our origins is because of an intelligent design to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. Is this what it is really about? Is it a "design" of God to bring life into existance on this planet? Whats the squabble over then? Isn't it a mute point?

Link to comment

Actually I am not sure. Did you mean to say "irrational reification into some kind of world outside of culture which is the culprit"? In other words, are you saying that something really existing at the level of culture is inappropriately reified into something supposedly outside culture?

Yes if I understand you correctly.

I'm saying we cannot know anything outside of culture and that it is improper to invent a world outside of what we can know- ie culture and human experience. Cartesian dualism makes this mistake of inventing such a world in my experience

Edit : sorry I have edited this more than once in rapid succession. I am done now! Sorry!

Link to comment

I'm saying we cannot know anything outside of culture and that it is improper to invent a world outside of what we can know- ie culture and human experience, ie: Cartesian dualism

How do you propose that we learn how to live like people live in Heaven? How do you propose that we become familiar with their culture, or cultures?

When God gives us revelation and our religion is to live by what he is telling us would you then say that our culture is the same as his, or is it some other?

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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